Marriage 
tons 
A DISCUSSION 


—Afons}e 


Correspondence between 
ELDER JOSEPH F. SMITH, JR. 
Of the Church of Jesus Christ ee Iiaseae -day Saints 
AND 


MR. RICHARD C, EVANS 


Second Counselor in the Presidency of the 
“Reorganized” Church 


Blood Atonement 
and me 
Origin of Plural 


Pamphlet Collection 


Duke Divinity Soleak 


“To correct misrepresentation, we adopt self representation.” 
—John Taylor. 


; ——— 


Cc Wy, / 7 - ) DL ” 
\/ fF / w/ &Y 4 
SS 


igock Atonement 


—AND THE— 


Origin of Plural Marriage 


A DISCUSSION 


Correspondence between ExpER JosEPH F. SMITH, (JR.,) 
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Mr. 
Ricuarp C. Evans, second counselor (1905) in the Presidency 
of the “Reorganized” Church. A conclusive refutation of the 
false charges persistently made by ministers of the “Reorgan- 
ized’ Church against the Latter-day Saints and their belief. 
Also a supplement containing a number of affidavits and 
other matters bearing on the subjects. 


Press of Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company 
Independence, Jackson County, Mo., U. 8. A. 
Printed in U. S. A. 


BLOOD ATONEMENT 


And the Origin of Plural Marriage 


INTRODUCTION 


The correspondence in this pamphlet was brought about 
through the wilful misrepresentation of the doctrines of the Latter- 
day Saints and the unwarranted abuse of the authorities of the 
Church by Mr. Richard C. Evans, in an interview which ap- 
peared in the Toronto (Canada) Daily Star of January 28, 1905. 
A copy of that interview was placed in the hands of the writer, 
who, on February roth following, replied to Mr. Evans in an 
open letter which was published in the Toronto Star on or about 
the 25th of that month.* This open letter was answered by Mr. 
Evans in a personal letter, and on the 23rd of May, a rejoinder to 
his reply was sent to Mr. Evans at his home in London, Ontario, 
Canada. In all, four communications—including the interview— 
have passed between us, and all of these four communications are 
here reproduced in full. A copy of the open letter which appeared 
in the Star, was also sent to Mr. Evans who acknowledged its 
receipt. Nothing more was done in regard to this correspon- 
dence until August 17th and 24th, when an article containing 
a portion of it appeared in the Zion’s Ensign, published by the 
“Reorganized” church at Independence, Jackson County, Mis- 
souri, under the title: “Statements Authenticated,” in which it 
was made to appear that the full and complete communications 
were reproduced. But this, however, was not the case. 


*As I did not receive a copy of the Toronto Star I cannot positively 
say that my article appeared in full, but if it did not Mr. Evans. is still 
without excuse for not considering the entire matter for he received per- 
sonally a duplicate copy of the article sent the Star which contained those 
portions he has failed to include in his “entire matter” in the Zion’s Ensign. 


4 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


In a letter from Mr. Evans to the editor of the Ensign 
which accompanied the above mentioned article, he said: 


Believing that good will be accomplished by the publication of the 
entire matter, I herewith mail you the referred to matter. 


From this it would naturally be supposed that the com- 
plete correspondence would be given. However I was not 
surprised to see that Mr. Evans’ side of the controversy was 
in full, while a large portion of my first communication had 
been purposely suppressed; and that my second letter did not 
appear at alll And thus was the “entire matter” given to the 
readers of the Ensign that “good” might be “accomplished.”(?) 


The parts that were purposely left out of my communica- 
tion by Mr. Evans, were most vital to the subject and have 
been indicated as they appear in the body of this work by 
being placed in Italics, excepting a few minor matters which 
he omitted that I have not mentioned, nevertheless matters that 
throw light upon the subject. 

One of these quotations was in relation to two articles in 
the first volume of the Saints Herald which were important, 


29) 


coming, as they did from the “enemy’s” camp. Here is the 
omitted part: 


If you believe your statement to be true, will you kindly explain the 
following passage in the Saints Herald, your official organ, volume 1, page 9, 
—it would be well for you to read the entire chapter, which is entitled 
“polygamy.” The quotation is as follows: 

“The death of the Prophet is one fact that has been realized, although 
he abhorred and repented of this iniquity (meaning “polygamy”) before 
his death. This branch of the subject we shall leave to some of our brethren, 
‘who are qualified to explain it satisfactorily.” 

In the same volume, page 27, what is meant by the following: “He, 
(Joseph Smith) caused the revelation on the subject (polygamy) to be burned, 
and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the 
arms of his enemies he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At that 
time he also said that if it had not been for that accursed spiritual wife 
doctrine he would not have come to that.” Kindly read the context. 

There is more evidence that can be produced, but if you will explain 
this it may suffice. 


The first half of the succeeding paragraph was quoted but 
the second half was omitted. I quote it in full with the part 
suppressed in italics: 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 5 


In the light of the knowledge I have received and the evidence at my 
command, I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no such statement 
as the above, and that he did not have the revelation burned. There is, 
however, value in the above statements from your “Herald,” for they bear 
witness to the origin and introduction of the principle of plural marriage 
and revelation concerning the same. 


It is easy to perceive that Mr. Evans felt “that good will be 
accomplished by the publication of the entire matter;’ and for 
that reason he omitted this evidence which the leaders of the 
“Reorganization” have beén trying so unsuccessfully to destroy 
for lo these many years. The two articles in the Saints Herald 
have caused the leaders of that sect no end of trouble, and today 
they are in the same fix in regard to plural marriage that the 
first editor of that paper was when he wrote, for they cannot 
explain the Prophet’s connection with the principle “satisfactorily,” 
and never will be able to until they acknowledge the truth. 


Another of Mr. Evans’ omissions that “good” might be 
“accomplished” (?) is the following paragraph in reference to 
President Brigham Young: 


It is true that President Young was elected president at Kanesville; but 
on what grounds do you charge him with holding the office in trust for the 
“dead president’s son?” Do you not know that such a statement—contrary 
to the written word—was antagonistic to the teachings of President Young, 
as recorded in the Times and Seasons, as well as since that time? 


Will you please explain on what grounds you charge President Young 
with being “under suspicion at the time of Joseph Smith’s death?” Am 
I to infer by this that you mean to convey the idea that Brigham Young 
was in any way responsible for the death of Joseph Smith? The Prophet 
never had a truer friend. You know that at the time of the martyrdom 
Brigham Young was on a mission away from home. If this is the infer- 
ence you wish to convey, it is not only contemptible but viciously false. 


It appears from the actions of many of those who fight 
the Latter-day Saints, that they fully realize their inability 
to successfully oppose the doctrines of the Church with truth as 
a weapon of attack, and, therefore, resort to falsehood, vilification 
and abuse, attempting to blind those who are not acquainted with 
the facts. The doctrine of the Church has survived all such 
onslaughts and continues to spread throughout the earth, as a 


6 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


witness against those who have adopted such base methods for its 
overthrow. It will continue to spread, bless mankind and pre- 
pare all who accept it, and follow its teachings in righteousness, 
for an inheritance in the kingdom of God. 

The Reorganite ministers are generally in the front rank 
among those who oppose the Church and resort to tatics of a 
doubtful character. They travel from place to place, never 
losing an opportunity in private, on the rostrum or through 
the press, to “explain the radical difference” between their 
organization and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 
day Saints, and in denouncing “the Utah Mormon and his 
iniquities.” On such occasions they will quote garbled and 
isolated extracts from sermons and from writings by Elders of 
the Church, taking particular pains to cover up the context in 
order to prejudice the uninformed mind. In this way many 
a harmless, inoffensive passage has been made to do great 
execution in some quarters and among a certain class. Nor is 
this all. Nearly every crime that was committed within a 
thousand miles of Utah in early days and many that were 
invented out of whole cloth, are brought to bear against the 
“dreadful Mormons,” the Church and the Gospel, that they 
may be stigmatized and made to appear vile and hateful be- 
fore the world. So much of their time is spent in this way 
that they can surely have but little left in which to tell the 
world what they themselves believe. 


No reason except that of misrepresentation and jealousy can 
be assigned for actions of this kind. These men oppose the 
truth in a spirit of jealousy and to cover up their own false 
position, and by such an attitude prove that they are ashamed of 
their own faith, being conscious of its weakness. 


The supplement following the correspondence is composed 
of a number of affidavits and other testimony bearing on the 
subjects under discussion, which, it is hoped, will be of interest 
and perhaps of value to the reader. 

JOSEPH F. SMITH, JR. 
Salt Lake City, Utah, September 5, 1905. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 7 


MR. R. C. EVANS’ INTERVIEW IN THE 
TORONTO, CANADA, “DAILY STAR,” 
JAN. 28, 1905 


LATTER-DAY SAINT VISITING TORONTO — MR. R. C. 
EVANS, WHO IS PROMOTING THE GROWTH OF HIS 
CHURCH IN CANADA, NOT A BELIEVER IN POLYGAMY 
—DENOUNCES THE UTAH MORMONS: 


The name Mormon does not please Toronto’s six hundred 
baptized Latter-day Saints, not to mention the fifty thousand 
others scattered over the globe. 

This fact was emphasized today, when R. C. Evans, one 
of the three members of the Presidency, explained the radical 
difference between the two denominations. Mr. Evans, who 
reached Toronto a few days ago to spend a month here, de- 
nounces the “Utah Mormon and his iniquities.” 

“We do not believe in polygamy, blood atonement, and 
kindred evils,’ he said to the Star last night at 142 Peter 
street, where he is visiting, “They are an abomination to the 
Lord.” The term Mormon is offensive to us, because it is 
associated in the public mind with the practices that I have 
specified. The other night, while I was holding a service here, 
four Utah Elders came to me. I referred to polygamy, and they 
defended it. ‘We endorse it, they told me, ‘but we don’t 
practice it. Three women were with them, and I said to one, 
‘Do you believe in polygamy?’ ‘I do,’ she replied, ‘and I know 
that God will punish the United States for prohibiting it. I 
understand that there are five Utah elders in Toronto at the 
present time, and in addresses here I will expose polygamy and 
blood atonement.” 


BORN NEAR MONTREAL 


Mr. Evans is forty-three years old, but doesn’t look his 
age. He is rather below medium height, strongly built, wears 
his black hair short, and his round, slightly olive face is clean 
shaven. He is animated in manner, and though his English is 
occasionally at fault, he speaks fluntly and well. He was born 


8 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


at St. Andrew’s near Montreal, but his ancestry is not confined to 
any one country, Irish, Welsh and German blood flows in his 
veins and his somewhat nasal voice is typically American. 


“I was baptized in 1876,” he said, “ordained a priest in 
1882, became an elder in 1884, entered the quorum of seventy 
in 1886, was chosen one of the twelve apostles in 1897; and in 
1902, was selected one of President Joseph Smith’s two coun- 
selors, the other being his eldest son, Frederick M. Smith. I 
was the pastor of the London, Ontario, church from 1882 to 
1886, and have given particular attention to Canada. We occupy 
a rented church on the corner of Sumach and St. David streets, 
a new church on Camden street, and another at Humber Bay, 
practically three congregations in Toronto.” 


The Lattery-day Saints and the Utah Mormons, according to 
Mr. Evans, are frequently confused, greatly to his regret. 


TROUBLES OF THE SECT 


“My President Joseph Smith,” he explained, “is the oldest 
son of that Joseph Smith, who, when a boy of fifteen, was 
directed to the mound wherein he found the golden plates from 
which he compiled the Book of Mormon. 


“He organized his church in 1830, when 25 years old, and 
between 1830 and 1844 his following numbered 200,000. In 
1844 he was shot and killed for his anti-slavery sympathies,* and 
with him died his brother Hyrum. John Taylor, a Toronto con- 
vert of 1838, was wounded, but recovered. Joseph Smith’s city of 
Nauvoo, Illinois, was wrecked, and in 1847, at Kanesville, Iowa, 
Brigham Young was elected president, though he still professed 
to hold the office in trust for the dead president’s eldest son, also, 


*Mr. Evans’ declaration that the Prophet was killed for his anti-slavery 
sympathies is rather surprising, when we consider that he was in one of the 
anti-slave states, and the mob at Carthage was largely composed of men with 
very strong “anti-slavery sympathies.” The fact is he and his brother Hyrum 
were martyred for their religion of which Celestial Marriage, (including Plural 
Marriage) formed a part. One of the charges made against them was that 
of teaching “polygamy.” 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 9 


Joseph, whom the father had consecrated as his successor.* 
Brigham Young reorganizedi the church, rebaptized every mem- 
ber, including himself, and in 1848 (1847) he reached Salt Lake 
City. With him went the widow and children of Hyrum Smith, 
whose son Joseph F., is now president of the Utah church. The 
widow of the first president had refused to follow Young, and 
her boy Joseph was brought up in his father’s footsteps, hating 
polygamy and other impurities. ‘Young Joseph, as he was 
called, connected himself with the Saints, who had rejected 
Brigham Young, and was elected their president. He was then 
28 years old. In 1872 he was called to Washington, a report 
having reached the Government that Mormonism had again 
sprung up in Illinois. He disproved the charge of polygamy and 
blood atonement, and demonstrated that Latter-day Saintism was 
in keeping with the law and supported by the Bible. Incorpora- 
tion was granted, and we have prospered. 


UPHELD DEATH 


“Brigham Young, who had been under suspicion at Joseph 
Smith’s death, introduced polygamy and blood atonement at 
Salt Lake City. Blood atonement meant death to anyone who 
left his church. Brigham Young’s argument was that the 
apostate whose throat was cut from ear to ear, the favorite way, 
saved his soul, but his object was to keep his people under his 
iron heel. Young was a shrewd, bad man. 

“IT spent a day and a half with Joseph F. Smith at Salt 
Lake City three years ago, and he gave me a group photo of 
himself, his surviving five wives, and thirty-six children. His 
first wife was dead. She died broken-hearted and insane. 
Personally, Joseph F. Smith is a genial, kindly man, but he 
and I differed on Polygamy. I told him it was vile and 


*In proof that the Prophet did not ordain or consecrate his son as his 
successor, the reader is referred to the affidavits of John W. Rigdon and 
Bathsheba W. Smith. 

tAs the Church was never disorganized, it could not be reorganized. 
Mr. Evans has made a mistake. It was the Quorum of the First Presidency 
that was disorganized at the Prophet’s death and which was reorganized 
when Brigham Young was elected President, and not the Church. 


10 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


wicked, always had been, and always would be. In appear- 
ance he resembles his cousin, my own president.” 

Mr. Evans is married, and has two children. The three 
faces look at you from his watch case. He has recently re- 
turned from the northwest. His faith has several thriving 
churches there, he says, while the Utah Mormons are settled 
in one part of Alberta. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 11 


REPLY TO R. C. EVANS 


The following letter was published in the Toronto Daily 
Star in answer to the false charges which appeared in Mr. 
Evans’ interview. 

Salt Lake City, Feb. 19, 1905. 
Mr. R. C. Evans, 

Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church. 

Sir:—I have before me a copy of the Toronto Daily Star, 
bearing date of January 28, last, in which there is a column 
on the front page, purporting to be an interview, by a repre- 
sentative of that paper with you, in which you are reported 
to have said some things to which I desire to call your at- 
tention. 

In doing so I desire to be fair and dispassionate, and also 
candid, and I would like it if you would receive and reply to 
this communication in the same spirit and manner to me per- 
sonally. 

You are reported as not being “pleased,” nor Toronto’s six 
hundred baptized members, with the name “Mormon.” “This 
fact,” says the Star, “was emphasized today when R. C. Evans, 
one of the three members of the Presidency explained the radical 
difference between the two denominations. Mr. Evans * * 
denounced the Utah Mormon and his iniquities.” Then you 
are made to say: “The term Mormon is offensive to us, because 
it is associated in the public mind with the practices that I 
have specified.” That is, the alleged practices of the Utah 
“Mormons,” namely, “polygamy and blood atonement.” 

Did you not know that “the term Mormon” has always 
been applied to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 
That the name attached to the Church with the publication and 
promulgation of the Book of Mormon? That it was first applied 
by the enemies of the Church as an opprobrium; but that during 
the lifetime of Joseph Smith the Martyr, and ever since it has 
been a term accepted by the Church because of popular custom, 
as an appellation? 

If, then, the name is so distasteful to you and your 


12 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


fellows in Canada and throughout the world, although it be on 
the grounds you have named, why do you not discard the 
Book of Mormon, from whence the name is derived, as well as 
the name Is not the term Book of Mormon as closely as- 
sociated in the public mind with “polygamy and blood atone- 
ment,” as is the name of the Book? How are you going to 
disassociate the book itself from the name as commonly applied 
to the Church, since this name has been attached to the Church 
from the beginning, and before the alleged “practices” of the 
“Utah Mormon” gained such publicity? Really, I think it 
would be quite proper for those holding the view which you are 
said to have expressed, not only to renounce the name “Mormon” 
as applied to the Church but also the Book itself.* 


You do not believe in blood atonement. Is not this the 
more reason why you should discard the Book of Mormon? 
Are you not at issue with the teachings not only of that book, 
but also with those of the Bible on this matter If so, why not 
discard the Bible, and while you are about it, the Book of 
Doctrine and Convenants also? Both of these, as well as the 
Book of Mormon, teach the doctrine of “blood atonement,” and 
they are all “associated in the public mind” with the alleged 
“practices” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 


Let us consider this subject of “blood atonement.” 
) 


Book of Mormon:— 


Mosiah 3:11.—His blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen 
by the transgression of Adam. Verse 15.—And understood not that the law 
of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his 
blood. Verse 16. Even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins. 

Alma 21:9.——Now Aaron began to open the Scriptures unto them con- 
cerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the 
dead, and that there could be no redemption for mankind, save it was through 
the death and suffering of Christ, and the atonement of his blood. 


I Nephi 12:10.—Their garments are made white in his blood. 


II Nephi 9:7.—And if so, (not an infinite atonement) this flesh must 


*This sentence in italics was omitted in Mr. Evans’ publication of the 
entire matter in the Zion’s Ensign, August 17th, 1905. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 13: 
have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more. 


From the Bible:— 


Mark 14:22-25.—And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed and 
brake it, and gave to them, and said: Take, eat; this is my body. 

And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to 
them: and‘they all drank of it. 

And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament which 


is shed for many. 
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until 


that day that-I drink it new in the Kingdom of God. 


From the Doctrine and Covenants:— 


Section 45:4.—(Utah edition) Saying, Father, behold the sufferings and 
death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the 
blood of thy Son which was shed—the blood of him whom thou gavest that 
thyself might be glorified. i 

Section 74:7.—But little children are holy, being sanctified through the 
atonement of Jesus Christ, and this is what the scriptures mean. 

Section 76:39-41.—For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resur- 
rection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was 
slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made. 
And this is the gospel, the glad tidings which the voice out of the heavens 
bore record unto us. That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be cruci- 
fied for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the 
world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness. 

Section 29:1.—Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the 
Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins. Verse 17.—And 
it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the world, that I will take 
vengeance upon the wicked, for they will not repent; for the cup of mine 
indignation is full; for behold, my blood shall not cleanse them if they hear 
me Not. - 


STATEMENT OF AN ENEMY 


But the report says: “This doctrine was introduced by 
Brigham Young” and that it meant “death to anyone who 
left the Church * ~* _ that the apostate whose throat was 
cut from ear to ear *. * — saved his soul.” Why you made 
this statement you best know; but were you not aware that it 
was but the repetition of the ravings of enemies of the Church, 
without one grain of truth? Did you not know that not a single 
individual was ever “blood atoned,” as you are pleased to call it 
for apostasy or any other cause? Were you not aware, in re. 


14 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


peating this false charge, that it was made by the most bitter 
enemies of the Church before the death of the Prophet Joseph 
Smith? Do you know of anyone whose blood was ever shed by 
the command of the Church, or members thereof, to “save his 
soul?” Did you not know that you were embittering the people 
against the “Mormon” Elders, and that just such malicious 
charges and false insinuations have made martyrs for the Church, 
whose blood does not “cease to come up into the ears of the 
Lord of Sabaoth?” 

Never in the history of this people can the time be pointed 
to when the Church ever attempted to pass judgment on, or 
execute an apostate as per your statement. There are men 
living in Utah today who left the Church in the earliest history 
of our State who feel as secure, and are just as secure and 
free from molestation from their former associates as you or any 
other man could be. 

EFFICACY OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST 

The Latter-day Saints believe in the efficacy of the blood 
of Christ. They believe that through obedience to the laws 
and ordinances of the Gospel they obtain a remission of sins; 
but this could not be if Christ had not died for them. If you 
did believe in blood atonement, I might ask you why the blood 
of Christ was shed? and im whose stead was it shed? 1 might 
ask you to explain the words of Paul: “Without shedding of 
blood is no remission.” 

: UNPARDONABLE SINS 

Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may 
commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? 
Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book 
of Mormon? And is not this further reason why you should 
discard the Book as well as the name? Is it not safe for us to 
rely upon the scriptures for the solution of problems of this 
kind? Let me quote: 

From the Book of Mormon: 

II Nephi 9:35.—Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for 
he shall die. ; hae 

Alma 1:13, 14.—And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, 
a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare 
thee, his blood would come upon us for vegeance. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 15 


Alma 42:19.—Now, if there were no law given—if a man murdered he 
should die, would he be afraid he would die if he should murder? 


From the Bible: 


Genesis 9:12, 13.—And whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his 
blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man. 

For a commandment I give, that every man’s brother shall preserve the 
life of man, for in mine own image have I made man. (Inspired translation.) 

Luke 11:50.—That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from 
the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation. 

Hebrews 9:22.—And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; 
and without shedding of blood is no remission. 

Hebrews 10:26-29.—For if we sin wilfully, after that we ine received 
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. 

= * * * 

He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three 
witnesses; 

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, 
who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood 
of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing. 

(I commend to you the careful reading of these two chapters:) 

‘I John 3:15.—No murdered hath eternal life abiding in him. 

I John 5:16.—I£ any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto 
death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. 
There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 


From the Doctrine and Covenants: 


Section 87:7.—That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, 
shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the Sue 
to be avenged of their enemies. 

Section 101:80.—And for this purpose have I established the constitution 
of this land, by the hands of wise men, whom I raised up unto this very pur- 
pose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. 

Section 42:18, 19.—And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou 
shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor 
in the world to come. 

And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die. 

- Verse 79.—And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you shall 
kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the 
land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and it shall be proved accord- 
ing to the laws of the land. 


THE LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 


In pursuance of, and in harmony with this scriputral doc- 
trine, which has been the righteous law from the days of 


16 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


Adam to the present time, the founders of Utah incorporated 
in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punish- 
ment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow man. 
This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the 
condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself 
whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus 
have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus 
atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his 
victim. Almost without exception the condemned party choses 
the latter death. This is by the authority of the law of the 
land, not that of the Church. This law was placed on the statutes 
through the efforts of the “Mormon” legislators, and grants to 
the accused the right of jury trial. It is from this that the 
vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously 
misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to be- 
lieve a lie. When men accuse ‘the Church of practicing “blood 
atonement” on those’ who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on 
any living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and 
they shall stand condemned before the judgment seat of God. 


PLURAL MARRIAGE 


Since the action taken by the United States government, 
and also by the Church, in regard to plural marriage, I shall 
not discuss its virtues nor answer arguments in opposition to 
that principle as a principle of our faith. As you, however, are 
reported to have said that “Brigham Young introduced” that 
doctrine “in Salt Lake City,” I would be pleased if you would 
explain, as a matter of history, why Sidney Rigdon, before 
“President Young introduced” the doctrine, declared that the 
principle of plural marriage was introduced, to his knowledge, 
by Joseph Smith the Prophet, and that he, Sidney Rigdon, re- 
jected that doctrine and “warned ‘Joseph Smith and his family” 
that it would bring ruin upon them. You will find this in the 
Messenger and Advocate, published in June, 1846, volume 2, 
page 475, number 6. Will you kindly explain why this same 
Sidney Rigdon practiced polygamy, which he so fervently con- 
demns? Will you kindly explain why Lyman Wight, James 
J. Strang, Gladden Bishop, William Smith, and others, none of 
whom had much love for President Young and did not follow 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 17 


him, also taught and practiced polygamy before plural marriage 
was “introduced by President Young.” If you doubt this, I will 
gladly furnish you with the proof. Indeed, you may find a 
great deal of it in the third volume of your church history. 


THE “SAINTS HERALD” AS A WITNESS 

If you believe your statement to be true, will you kindly 
explain the following paragraph in the Saints Herald, your 
official organ, volume I, page 9. It would be well for you to 
read the entire chapter, which is entitled “polygamy.” The quota- 
tion is: 

“The death of the prophet is one fact that has been realized, 
although he abhorred and repented of this iniquity (meaning 
‘polygamy,’) before his death. This branch of the subject we 
shall leave to some of our brethren, who are qualified to explain it 
satisfactorily.” 

In the same volume, page 27, what is meant by the fol- 
lowing? 

“He (Joseph Smith) caused the revelation on the subject 
(‘polygamy’) to be burned, and when he voluntarily came to 
Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms of his enemies he 
said that he was going to Carthage to die. At that time he also 
said that if it had not been for that accursed spiritual wife 
doctrine, he would not have come to that.” Kindly read the 
context. 

There is more'evidence that can be produced, but if you will 
explain this it may suffice. 

In the light of the knowledge I have received and the 
evidence at my command, I know that the Prophet Joseph 
Smith made no such statement as the above, and that he did 
not have the revelation burned. There is, however, value in the 
above statements from your ‘Herald, for they bear witness to 
the origin and introduction of the principle of plural marriage, 
and the revelation concerning the same.* 


*The quotations from the Saints Herald which are in Italics were pur- 
posely omitted from Mr. Evans’ “publication of the entire matter,” as it ap- 
peared in the Zion’s Ensign of August 7, 1905. ‘The reason for the suppres- 
sion of this evidence is easy to discern. The authorities of the “Reorganiza- 
tion” have tried to destroy the evidence, that it could not be circulated among 
their church members, therefore very few copies of this particular Herald 
can today be found. 


18 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


utes THE UTAH VISIT 

In connection with this, let me call your attention to your 
visit to Salt Lake City some three years ago. At that time you 
met President Lorenzo Snow, a man whose yeracity cannot 
justly be questioned; you heard him -bear his testimony to the 
effect that he was taught that principle by the Prophet Joseph 
Smith, and that the Prophet declared to Lorenzo Snow that he 
had married his sister, Eliza R. Snow. You met and conversed 
with Lucy Walker Smith, and she told you that she was 
married to the Prophet Joseph Smith on the first day of May, 
1843, in Nauvoo, Elder William Clayton performing the cere- 
mony. You met Catherine Phillips Smith, who told you she was 
married in August, 1843, in Nauvoo, to the Patriarch Hyrum 
Smith, his brother Joseph the Prophet officiating in that cere- 
mony. You will remember that the first wives of both these 
men were living at the time. I hardly think these testimonies 
have passed from your memory in so brief a time. I am 
personally acquainted with these women, and know that they 
are truthful and honest—honorable women, whose testimonies 
should be believed. 

In the face of all this evidence, do you think it fair and 
consistent for you and your fellow believers to constantly lay 
at the door of President Brigham Young the responsibility for 
the “introduction of plural marriage” and the “authorship” of 
the above mentioned revelation? 

My letter is already long, but I desire to briefly mention 
another item or two. 

PRESIDENT SMITH’S DENIAL 

In the interview you are made to say that while on your 
visit to Salt Like City, you spent a day and a half with Joseph 
F. Smith; that you and he “differed on polygamy,” and that 
you “told him it was vile and wicked, always had been, and 
always would be.” I took occasion to ask my father if you and 
he had discussed polygamy at that time and if you had uttered 
that above expression or any other of like nature. He replied 
that he had no discussion with you on that subject; that you 
did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy, either 
favorable or otherwise; that your visit was a social one, and 
friendly, and was not occupied by the discussion of any dif- 
ferences which may have existed. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 19 


It is true that President Young was elected president at 
Kanesville, but on what grounds do you charge him with holding 
the office in trust for the “dead president's son?” Do you not 
know that such a statement—contrary to the written word—was 
antagonistic to the teachings of President Young, as recorded in 
the “Times and Seasons,’ as well as since that time? 

PRESIDENT YOUNG THE PROPHET’S FRIEND 

Will you please explain on what grounds you charge Presi- 
dent Young as being “under suspicion at the time of Joseph 
Smith’s death?” Am I to infer by this that you mean to convey 
the idea that Brigham Young was in any way responsible for the 
death of Joseph Smith? The Prophet never had a truer friend. 
You know that at the time of the martyrdom Brigham Young was 
on a mission away from home. If this is the inference you wish 
to convey, it is not only contemptible but viciously false.* 

With reference to my father’s first wife, you say she died 
“broken hearted and insane.” If you mean to insinuate that 
this condition, if true, was the result of any act whatever on 
the part of my father, it is also scandalously false. I have good 
reason to believe that she died neither broken hearted nor 
insane. If it were true, I would still think that you, as a 
professed minister of the Gospel, might employ your time to 
better advantage than as an aspersor or a scandal-monger. 


Respectfully, 
Joseph F. Smith, Jr. 


; *These paragraphs in italics were also omitted from Mr. Evans’ “publi- 
cation of the entire matter,” as it appeared in the Zion’s Ensign August 17, 


1905. 


20 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


MR. EVANS’ LETTER 


Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Jr.: 


Sir:—Your open letter published in the Toronto Star for 
February 25, is before me. You say: “I desire to be fair, dis- 
passionate and also candid.” Those who read your letter will 
see plainly that you have misrepresented the interview, my faith 
and the facts concerning my visit to Salt Lake, and that you 
are guilty of a labored effort to cover up the srue facts re- 
garding “blood atonement,” “polygamy,” etc., and my. faith 
in the Book of Mormon. So much for those desires. 

My position with regard to the Book of Mormon, and the 
name “Mormon,” is too well known for you to blind the 
people concerning it. The interview shows plainly in what 
sense “the term ‘Mormon’ is offensive to us.” Read it again, 
sir: “Because it is associated in the public mind with the 
practices that I have specified.” The abominations of Brigham- 
ism; namely, polygamy, blood atonment, Adam-God,* and other 
evils that have disgraced the name throughout civilization. 


The true Church never has adopted the name “Mormon” 
as being the proper name of the church. The Latter-day 


*The teachings of the Latter-day Saints in relation to the doctrine of the 
Godhead are clearly set forth in Elder B. H. Roberts’ valuable work, “Mor- 
mon Doctrine of Deity.” For the belief of the “Mormon” people regarding 
Adam and his place in the universe, attention is called especially to chapters 
one, five and six of that work; also to Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 78: 15-18, 
sec. 107: 53-57 and Daniel 7: 9-14. In relation to this matter I quote the 
following from the remarks of President Anthon H. Lund delivered at the 
General Conference, October 6, 1902. 

Some there are who follow our Elders, and after they have preached the 
principles of salvation, these men get up and charge-that the Elders do not 
believe in God, but that they believe in Adam as their God, and they will 
bring up a few passages from sermons delivered by this or that man in the 
Church to substantiate this charge. Now, we are not ashamed of the glorious 
doctrine of eternal progression, that man may attain the position of those to 
whom came the word of God, that is gods. When Jesus was preaching unto 
the Jews on one occasion they stoned Him, and He wanted to know if they 
stoned Him for the good works He had been doing. Oh, no, they say, “for 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 21 


Saints were sometimes called “Mormons” in derision, as you 
admit, because they believed in the divine authenticity of 
the Book of Mormon, and some church members may have 
been willing to be called “Mormon;” yet you “candidly (?) 
fairly, dispassionately” ask me, “Why do you not discard the 
Book of Mormon from whence the name is derived?” Now, 
sir, I profess to believe in the divine authenticity of the Holy 
Bible; as well-call me a Bible, because I believe in the Bible,* 
as call me a Mormon because I belive in the Book of Mor- 
mon. 

The church that I have the honor to represent is incor- 
porated under the laws of the United States as “The Reorgan- 
ized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” 


*I£ popular custom had designated the true believers of the Bible as 
“Bibles” as a term of distinction from other worshippers, there is no reason 
why a true believer should be offended even at that appellation: but rather 
honored. Mr. Evans, without doubt, is not ashamed of the name “Christian,” 
yet this term, like that of “Mormon” was first applied to the followers of 
Christ in derision, “because it was associated in the public mind with the 
practices” of the early Saints, which practices in that day were looked on as 
“abominations.” 


the good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, 
being a man, makest thyself God.” 

He quoted the 33rd to 37th verses of the roth chapter of the Gospel of 
St. John, and said: 

We believe that there are gods, as the Savior quoted. He repeated what 
was written in the law, and he did not say that it was wrong, but used it 
as an argument against them. (The Jews.) While, however, we believe as 
the scripture states, that there are more gods, to us there is but one God. We 
worship the God that created the heavens and the earth. We worship the 
same God that came to our first parents in the Garden of Eden. In the 
revelation contained in section 116 of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants 
the Lord speaks concerning Adam-ondi-Ahman, “the place where Adam shall 
come to visit his people, or the ancient of days shall sit, as spoken of by 
Daniel the Prophet.” In the 107 section the Lord speaks of Adam as Michael, 
the Prince, the Archangel, and says that he shall be a prince over the nations 
forever. We may with perfect propriety call him Prince, the Ancient of Days, 
or even God in the meaning of the words of Christ, which I have just quoted. 
When our missionaries are met with these sophistries and with isolated extracts 
from sermons we say to them anything that is a tenet of our religion must 
come through revelation and be sustained by the Church, and they need not do 
battle for anything outside of the works, that have been accepted by the 
Church as a body. p 


22 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


BLOOD ATONEMENT 


There is not an honest thinking person on earth who is 
acquainted with the faith of the church regarding the atone- 
ment of Jesus Christ but that will say your attempt to mis- 
represent my faith in this regard is diametrically opposite to 
your stated desire to be “fair, dispassionate and candid.” You 
know that a prominent article in the Epitome of the Faith and 
Doctrine of the true church reads as follows: “We believe that 
through the atonement of Christ, all men may be saved by 
obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.” You know 
that the true church believes in the atoning blood of Christ 
as stated in the scriptures you cite in your letter, and yet you 
try to make out'that because we do not believe in the doctrine of 
blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young and his suc- 
cessors in “Utah Mormonism,” that we do not believe in the 
atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 

The doctrine of the atonement of Christ is far above the 
doctrine of blood atonement as taught by Brighamism. To prove 
this, I submit the statements as made by Brigham Young and 
other leading members of the Utah Church, as found in their 
sermons, printed by your church: 


BLOOD ATONEMENT 


Brigham Young said, October 9, 1852: “What shall be 
done with the sheep that stink the flock so? We will take 
them, I was going to say, and cut off their tails two inches 
behind their ears; however I will use a milder term, and say 
cut off their ears.”’—Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:213. 

Brigham said again, March 27, 1853: “I say, rather than 
that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie 
knife, and conquer or die. (Great commotion in the congrega- 
tion and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declara- 
tion.) Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be 
put to the line and righteousness to the plummet. (Voices 
generally, ‘Go it, go it.’) If you say it is all right, raise your 
hands (all hands up). Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in 
this and every good work.”—Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:83. 

Echoing what Brigham said, P. P. Pratt said, on March 
27, 1853, “My feelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 23 


and firmly so. * * * I need not repeat their doom, 
it has been told here today, they have been faithfully warned. 
* * * It is too late in the day for ws to stop and inquire 
whether such an outcast has the truth.”’—Journal of Discourses, 
vol. 1, pp. 84, 86. 

Elder Orson Hyde said April 9, 1853: “Suppose the shep- 
herd should discover a wolf approaching the flock, what would 
he be likely to do? Why, we would suppose, if the wolf was 
within proper distance, that he would kill him at once * * * 
kill him on the spot. * * * It would have a tendency to 
place a terror on those who leave these parts, that may prove 
their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or 
shot down before the public.’—Journal of Discourses, vol. 
1:72, 73: 

President Brigham Young preached, February 8, 1857, as 
follows: “All mankind love themselves; and let these princi- 
ples be known by an individual and he would be glad to have 
his blood shed. That would be loving themselves even to an 
eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and _ sisters 
likewise when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned 
for without the shedding of blood? Will you love that man or 
woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus 
Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their 
enemies in their wickedness. He never intended any such thing. 

“T could refer you to plenty of instances where men have 
been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins. I have 
seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would 
have been a chance in the last resurrection if their lives had 
been taken and their blood spilled upon the ground, as a 
smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to 
the devil, until our elder brother, Jesus Christ, raises them 
up, conquers death, hell and the grave.* I have known a 


*This is a misquotation, it should be: “I could refer you to plenty of in- 
stances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their 
sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have 
been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been 
taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Al- 
mighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus 
Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell and the grave.” 

In that same discourse President Young declares that those who were 


24 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


great many men who have left this church, for whom there is no 
chance whatever for exaltation; but if their blood had been 
spilt it would have been better for them. The wickedness and 
ignorance of the nations forbid this principle being in full force, 
but the time will come when the law of God will be in full 
force. 

“This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs 
help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to 
spill his blood upon the ground in order that he may be saved, 
spill it.’—Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 220, or Deseret News, 
vol. 6, p. 397: 

President J. M. Grant said, September 21, 1856: “I say 
there are men and women here that I would advise to go to 
the president immediately, and ask him to appoint a commit- 
tee to attend to their case, and then let a place be selected, and 
let that committee shed their blood.”—Deseret News, vol. 6, 
P- 235- 

President Heber C. Kimball said, July 19, 1854: “It is be- 
lieved in the world that our females are all common women. 
Well, in one sense they are: common—that is, they are like all 
other women, I suppose, but they are not unclean, for we wipe 
all unclean ones out of our midst; we not only wipe them from 
our streets, but we wipe them out of existence. And if the 
world wants to practice uncleanness, and bring their prosti- 
tutes here, if they do not repent and forsake their sins, we will 
wipe the evil out. We will not have them in this valley unless 
they repent, for so help me God, while I live I will lend my 


“righteously slain” were the wicked that the “Lord had to slay” in ancient 
Israel. There is not one word in that discourse to indicate that those who 
were slain to ‘atone for their sins” were killed in Utah; but to the contrary 
they were ancient inhabitants of the earth, viz., the antediluvians who per- 
ished in the flood, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Jericho and 
the cities destroyed by the Israelites; the prophets of Baal whom Elijah slew 
(I Kings 18:40) and a host of others of that class and the class to whom the 
one belonged of whom the Savior said: “It were better for him that a millstone 
were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the 
sea.” President Young’s remarks agree with those of Peter when he declared 
that the Jews who were guilty of assenting to the crucifixion of Christ could 
not be baptized nor have their “sins blotted out” until the “times of refreshing 
shall come,” which was at the time of the “restitution of all things.”— 
Acts 3: 19-21. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 25 


hand to wipe such persons out, and I know this people will.” 
—Deseret News, August 16, 1854, and Millennial Star, vol. 
16, pages 738-9. 

The above statements speak for themselves, and these were 
what I read to the reporter. You ask, “Do you know of any- 
one whose blood was ever shed by the command of the church 
or members thereof to save his soul?” To know by hearing 
such a command given, or seeing a murder committed, is one 
thing, to believe the evidence of many who have testified is 
another. No sir, I was never present when such a command was 
given, nor when murder was committed; but I have read that 
which leads me to believe that under Brighamism, Utah was for 
years a land of assassination and a field of blood. What of the 
Mountain Meadow massacre—the destruction of the Aiken party; 
the dying confession of Bishop J. D. Lee; the Hickman butcheries; 
the Danites? Alfred Henry Lewis, writing in Collier’s Weekly 
for March 26, 1904, states: “Brigham Young invented his destroy- 
ing angels, placed himself at their head, and when a man re- 
belled, he had him murdered, if one fled the fold he was pursued 
and slain.” 

The world has recently read the testimony of persons under 
oath, in Washington, who testified concerning the endowment 
oaths, so I will forbear any further remarks on this subject. 


POLYGAMY 


Speaking of “plural marriage,” you say, “I shall not dis- 
cuss its virtues.” Surely that is kind. Let civilization give ear, 
Mr. Smith calls that a virtue which wrecks the happiness of 
every woman who is enslaved by it, that doctrine which permits 
Brighamites to live in what they call marriage with three sisters 
at one time, with mother and daughter at the same time. Your 
father, Joseph F. Smith, married and is now living with two 
sisters as wives. 1 refer to Julina Lambson and Edna Lambson, 
both bearing children to him; yet you call that system a virtue. 

I have no evidence that those men you refer to, as having 
practiced polygamy before Young was guilty, as stated by you. 
But the following evidence shows clearly that Brigham Young 
was under suspicion before Joseph’s death, and that he has 
since admitted that he had a revelation on polygamy before 
the church knew anything of the doctrine:— 


26 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


In a speech of Brigham Young on June 21, 1874, (see 
Deseret News of July 1, 1874), we read the following state- 
ment relative to the origin of this doctrine of polygamy: 


While we were in England (in 1839 and 1840, I think) the Lord mani- 
fested to me by vision and His Spirit, things that I did not then understand. 
I never opened my mouth to anyone concerning them, until I returned to 
Nauvoo; Joseph had never mentioned this; there had never been a thought 
of it in the church that I ever knew anything about at that time;—but I had 
this for myself and kept it for myself—The Messenger, volume 1, page 29. 


Well, no one need blame Joseph any more, Brigham is the 
self-confessed channel through which polygamy was given to 
his people. 

I here submit the testimony of Brigham Young’s legal 
wife; who left him after he was untrue to her. Testimony of 
Major Thomas Wanless, given to R. C. Evans, his nephew, in 
the presence of Mrs. Wanless, Mrs. Evans and her daughter, 
in St. Louis, Missouri, September 7, 1904: 


I met Brigham Young’s First and legal wife and her daughter in the 
winter of 1860 and 1861, at Central City, Colorado; she told me that Joseph 
Smith had nothing to do with polygamy; that he did not teach, practice, or 
in any way endorse the doctrine of polygamy, that he had nothing to do with 
the so-called revelation on celestial marriage; that he had but one wife. My 
husband, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt (she gave the name of another man 
whose name I have forgotten) made up the revelation on celestial marriage. 

Before they left Illinois some of them: practiced polygamy. Brigham 
Young went to Utah to reorganize the church and publicly introduced polyg- 
amy, or to reorganize the Church on a polygamous basis. 

She left Brigham Young, finally obtained a divorce from him, and was 
then living with her daughter. Brigham sent the daughter money according 
to an agreement. She told me they ought to have shot Brigham Young in 
place of Joseph Smith. 


This statement of Major Wanless that she was Brigham’s 
first wife is a mistake. Brigham married Miriam Works, Oc- — 
tober 8, 1824; she died September 8, 1832. In February, 1834, 
he married Mary Ann Angel; she was his legal wife, and per- 
haps is the one referred to by the Major. It is quite pardon- 
able in Major Wanless in getting Brigham’s wives mixed up. 
We opine poor Brigham was at his wit’s end to keep the 
family record correct himself. 


Chambers’ encyclopedia, volume 8, students’ edition, con- 
firms Mrs. Young’s statement, in part. It says, speaking of 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 27 


the practice of polygamy: “Young, Pratt and Hyde are its 
true originators. Emma, wife and widow of the prophet, 
stoutly denied that her husband had any wife but herself. 
Young’s revelation she declared to be a fraud.” 

From a host of other witnesses who testify that Brigham 
Young was the man that introduced polygamy in the Church, 
I submit the statement of another broken-hearted woman from 
the ranks of Brigham’s Church. Fanny Stenhouse says: Polygamy 
was unheard of among the (English) Saints in 1849.” (pages 45, 
47, 48) “Tell It All,” by Fanny Stenhouse. “In June 1850, I 
heard the first whisper of polygamy. In January, 1853, I first 
saw -the revelation on Polygamy; it was published in the 
Millennial Star,” (page 132). 

“Out of thirty thousand Saints in England in 1853, 1776 
had been excommunicated for apostasy through polygamy, the 
president of the conference was cut off,” (page 160). When 
speaking regarding polygamy she says: “They know that the 
only source of all their revelations is the man BRIGHAM 
YOUNG,” (page 190). 

“Brigham has outraged decency and driven asunder the most 
sacred ties, by his shameless introduction of pelygamy,” (page 


“There have been many apostates from the teachings of 
Joseph Smith in early days, but of all apostates, Bro. Brigham is 
the chief,” (page 614). 

It is reported by Fanny Stenhouse, and many others, that 
Joseph Smith said, “If ever the Church had the misfortune to be 
led by Bro. Brigham, he would lead it to hell,” (page 268). 

Why did Joseph Smith a short time prior to his death 
make the above and similar statements regarding the man 
Brigham Young? The reason is plain. He too had doubtless 
heard some rumors as to his conduct and secret teachings, and 
the evidence would seem to indicate that just before his death 
he made a move to bring the guilty to judgment. We will let 
William Marks, who was president of the Nauvoo Stake at the 
time of Joseph Smith’s death testify:— 

“A few days after this occurrence, I met with Bro. Joseph, 
he said that he wanted to converse with me on the affairs of 
the Church, and we retired by ourselves; I will give his words 
verbatim for they are indelibly stamped upon my mind. He 


28 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


said he had desired for a long time to have a talk with me on 
the subject of polygamy. He said it would eventually prove 
the overthrow of the Church, and we should soon be obliged 
to leave the United States, unless it could be speedily put 
down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and 
that there must be every exertion made to put it down. He 
said that he would go before the congregation and proclaim 
against it, and I must go into the High Council, and he would 
prefer charges against those in transgression, and I must sever 
them from the Church unless they made ample satisfaction. 
There was much more said, but this was the substance. The 
mob commenced to gather about Carthage in a few days after, 
therefore there was nothing: done concerning it.” (Saints Herald, 
vol. I, pp. 22, 23.) 

President Marks, after Joseph Smith’s death, made men- 
tion of the above conversation; it was soon rumored that he was 
about to apostatize, and that his statement was a tissue of 
lies.” (See Saints Herald, vol. 1, pp. 22, 23.) 

Speaking of the revelation on polygamy, Marks said, “I 
never heard of it during Joseph’s life. It was evidently gotten 
up by Brigham Young and some of the Twelve, after Joseph’s 
death.” (Briggs’ Autobiography; Herald 1901.) 

Now I propose to produce evidence showing that Joseph 
Smith and the Church during his lifetime condemned polyg- 
amy in the strongest terms. First, I submit the testimony of 
thirty-one witnesses as published by the Church on October the 
1st, 1842. We deem this sufficient to show you whete Joseph 
and Hyrum Smith stood on this question of polygamy. 

“We, the undersigned members of the Church*of Jesus Christ 
of Latter-day Saints, and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons 
of families, do hereby certify and declare, that we know of no 
other rule or system of marriage than the one published from 
the Book of Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that 
Dr. John C. Bennett’s secret wife system is a creature of his 
own make, as we know of no such society in this place, nor 
never did.” 

This is signed by a number of the leading men of the 
Church, some of the Twelve Apostles, some of the First Presi- 
dency of the Utah Church, and a number of the leading men 
of the Church. A similar document is signed by Emma 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 29 


Smith the wife of Joseph Smith, and a number of the leading 
women of the Church, thirty-one witnesses in all. 

Now I submit for your consideration a statement made 
by Joseph Smith and his Brother Hyrum just a few months 
prior to their assassination. They learned that a man up here 
in the state of Michigan was teaching polygamy, and this is 
what they said about it: “As we have lately been credibly in- 
formed that a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 
day Saints, a man by the name of Hyrum Brown, has been 
teaching polygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the 
county of Lapeer, state of Michigan, this is to notify him and 
the Church in general that he has been cut off from the Church 
for his iniquity.” Signed, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Presi- 
dents of the Church. ; 

This was given in February, 1844. Joseph was killed four 
months after that. Here he declares that polygamy is a crime, 
and the man was excommunicated from the Church for preach- 
ing it. Now I want to give you the testimony of George Q. 
Cannon, whom I met in Salt Lake City, as one of the presidency 
of the Salt Lake Mormon Church: “A prevalent idea has been 
that this prejudice against us owes its origin and continuation 
to our belief in a plurality of wives * * Joseph and 
Hyrum Smith were slain in the Carthage Jail, and hundreds 
of persons were persecuted to death previous to the Church 
having any knowledge of this doctrine.”*—Journal of Discourses, 
vol. 14, pages 165, 166. 


*In extreme haste here to make a point, Mr. Evans left in the middle 
of a sentence and hurried on to the next page to complete the expression 
he desired to convey. This is what President Cannon said: “A prevalent idea 
has been that this prejudice against us owes its origin and continuation to 
our belief in a plurality of wives; but when it is recollected that the mobbings, 
drivings, and expulsions from cities, counties and states which we have en- 
dured, and our exodus to these mountains all took place before the revelation 
of that doctrine was PUBLICLY known, it will be seen at once that our belief 
in it has not been the cause of persecution.” Now, I ask, is it not plain to 
see why his quotation stopped in the middle of a sentence? The Saints all 
know that President George Q. Cannon was always faithful to his testimony 
that plural marriage was introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Latter-day 
Saints generally declare that this doctrine was not publicly known in the days 
of Joseph the Seer, but that it was taught by him to his trusted friends. When 
this fact is known the alleged quotations which follow, purported to be from 
H. B. Clawson, Ephraim Jenson and “Elder Whitaker” lose their force. 


30 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


This being true, Joseph Smith was not guilty of the prac- 
tice of polygamy; he was killed before the people knew any- 
thing about polygamy. This is the statement of George Q. 
Cannon. Let me strengthen this now by the son-in-law of 
Brigham Young, H. B. Clawson: 

“Polygamy at that time (that is at the time of Joseph 
Smith’s death) was not known among those of the Mormon 
faith. * * The doctrine of polygamy was not promulgated 
until they got to Salt Lake; not, in fact, until some little time 
after they had arrived there.” Salt Lake Herald, February 9, 
1882.* 

Joseph Smith was killed in 1844. They arrived in Salt 
Lake the 24th of July, 1847, and he says not until some little 
time after that was it introduced. The little time was the 29th 
of August, 1852, eight years and two months after the assassi- 
nation of Joseph Smith. 

We have Brigham Young himself on this. He being in- 
terviewed by Senator Trumbull in 1869, said: “It (polygamy) 
was adopted by us as a necessity after we came here.” Ah, there 
never was a greater truth told in all the world than that. 
Polygamy was not an original tenet of the Church, and Brigham 
Young says it was adopted as a necessity after “we came here.” 
The real facts are, Brigham Young, as I shall show from their 
own evidence, and a few other Elders were living vile lives 
secretly, and to cover up the consequences of their bad conduct, 
as he truthfully says in this “as a necessity;” yes, as a necessity 
polygamy was introduced. But who will dare to blame Joseph 
Smith for their introducing polygamy eight years after his 
death? 

I have been careful to take these clippings right from 
their own papers, so that they cannot say that we have changed 
the words or anything of that kind. Here is another state- 
ment; this is found from Elder Ephraim Jenson:— 

“Polygamy was not practiced by the Mormons prior to 
and at the time of the execution of Joseph Smith, who was 
executed at Nauvoo, Illinois. * * Fourth, that only three 
per cent of the Mormon men practiced polygamy, a proof itself 
that it was not essential to the creed..—The Yeoman’s Shield. 

*This is not in the Salt Lake Herald of February 9, 1882. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 31 


Here is another one:— 


“Go back to the foundation of our Church, April 6, 1830, 
there was no polygamy practiced or taught in Mormon litera 
ture until five years after that band of persecuted Saints reached 
Utah.” New York Herald, January 8, 1g00.* 


This is by Elder Whitaker, who knew who did introduce 
this polygamy. Now I might introduce dozens and dozens of 
Witnesses to prove that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with it. 
Well, who did it? Here is what the Apostle’s wife says of it: 
“How then, asked the reader, did polygamy originate? It 
was born in the vile and lustful brain of Brigham Young, and 


*The following is the Brooklyn Citzzen’s report of that same discourse 
from which Mr. Evans quotes his passage as given im the New York Herald: 
Elder Whitaker said: “The people of the East have beem led to believe that 
polygamy was alone responsible for all the troubles of the Mormons, but the 
fact remains, that as the fight was waged against Jesus Christ, against his 
followers, and against all great men for declaring the truth, so the same 
spirit is manifest now; but the Mormons will humbly seek those willing to 
accept the truths imspired of God, leaving the justice of their cause to be 
vindicated by honest investigation and time. The fight is directed against 
the doctrine of the Mormon Church, though polygamy has done such yeoman 
service in arousing public sentiment, to attain certain ends unworthy of hon- 
est men. The crusaders have kept the public mind from the real cause of 
the attack. From the time the Church was organized in 1830-47, when the 
people, after many previous drivings, persecutions, mobbings and cruel mock- 
ings, were driven to Utah, the cry of polygamy was never made a cause of 
their persecutions; indeed, that subject was not committed in writing until 
1843, never published to the world until 1852, and was abandoned by the 
issuance of the ‘Manifesto’ of President Wilford Woodruff, in 1890, since 
- which time not one polygamous marriage has been solemnized; but those 
having wives at that time were never asked, and it was never expected they 
would abandon them, and when death brings such relations to 2 close, there 
will be no polygamy among the Mormons” The Brooklyn Citizen, Monday, 
January 8, 1900. 

Why Mr. Evans accepted the brief extract from the New York Herald in 
preference to the full account in the Brooklyn Citizen will require no com- 
ment, but it certainly does appear that Elder Whitaker did know who intro- 
duced “polygamy.” 

As I do not have the Yeoman’s Shield and am not in communication with 
Elder Ephraim Jenson, I cannot vouch for his remarks, but feel safe in say- 
ing that if the whole report were published, his testimony would agree with 
that of Elder Whitaker as published in the Brooklyn Citizen. 


32 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


was grafted on the faith to gratify his sensual bestilality.”* 
(Mysteries of Mormonism, pp. 16, 17.) ; 

One of the Mormon wives said that, and she ought to 
know whereof she affirms. 

We have learned from the above statements that polyg- 
amy was not taught or practiced by Joseph Smith, but was 
introduced into an apostate branch of the church, after his 
death, as is admitted by Brigham Young and others of his 
followers. 

Having read the works of the church for over a quarter 
of a century, I confidently affirm that there is not a single 
word, in a single sermon, lecture, statement, newspaper or church 
publication printed during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph 
Smith wherever he, by word, has endorsed the doctrine of 
plurality of wives; not a single statement; and there is no Salt 
Lake Mormon breathing who can produce one and proye its 
authenticity. 

But suppose you could prove that Joseph Smith secretly 
taught and practiced polygamy, that would not make it a 
Christian doctrine. If Joseph Smith secretly taught, practiced, or 
endorsed the doctrine of polygamy, he did it contrary to all the 


*In quoting from “The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle’s Wife,” 
Mr. Evans reveals the character of his “dozens and dozens of witnesses.” 
The reader will perceive that he depends largely on the most bitter anti- 
“Mormons” and apostates for his “evidence,” but in quoting from “The 
Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle’s Wife,” he certainly reaches the 
climax of this base testimony. This work was published in 1882, by Richard 
K. Fox, proprietor of the notorious Police Gazette. "The author of these 
“Mysteries,” undoubtedly a man, assumes the title of “An Apostle’s Wife,” 
in order to hide his perfidy. The work is one of the vilest and most con- 
temptible of all anti-“Mormon” publications, and is most bitter in its denun- 
ciation of the Prophet Joseph Smith. In it he is called a “lusty toper,” “the 
worst of a bad breed,” “an ignorant, brutal loafer,” “immoral, false and 
fraudulent,” and the author says, “this is the man who founded what he 
dared to call a faith, and grafted on the United States the religion of 
licentiousness and bodily lust known as Mormonism.” An apology is per- 
haps due for even referring to this matter, but since Mr. Evans makes this 
work one of the chief of his “dozens and dozens of witnesses,” I feel that - 
he should be exposed. He professes to believe in the divine mission of Joseph 
Smith, and yet calls upon us to accept the wicked falsehoods of this dis- 
reputable witness, whom he declares “ought to know whereof she affirms.” 
Shame upon the man who draws his inspiration from such a source! 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 33 


revelations given for the government of. the church in the 
Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; contrary 
to all his sermons, speeches, and public teachings; and he was a 
criminal before the law of his country, a base hypocrite before 
the God whom he openly worshiped, a despicable traitor to the 
woman whom he claimed to love and cherish as his wife, and 
was untrue to all the sacred principles of fidelity and integrity 
which he evinced in all his public utterances and conduct. 

In the face of all this, the wife and children of Joseph 
Smith, together with thousands of people who knew him in 
life, refuse to believe the contradictory statements of Brigham 
Young and others who are wallowing in the mire of polygamy. 

MY VISIT TO UTAH 

If your father denies that he and I discussed the doctrine 
of polygamy, all I have to say about it is, that what he states is 
untrue. Here are a few points that may help him to re- 
member what was said and done: When talking with Joseph 
F. Smith in Salt Lake City two years ago, he brought up a 
number of witnesses and J examined them—that is, he re- 
peated the testimony of some who had testified. He finally 
said, “I can’ produce a living woman who will testify that 
Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and she knew it.” I said, 
“Bring her along here and let us examine her.” Well, I met 
“Aunt Lucy” Walker Kimball, to whom you refer, and we 
talked the matter over, and here is the one point to which I 
want to draw your attention, to show how these poor dupes of 
Brigham Young may be led. Coming to the testimony of 
Emma Smith, I said, “You were personally acquainted with 
Emma Smith?’ “Yes.” “What have you to say as to her 
integrity, as to her fidelity and honor?” The old woman looked 
me fair in the face and said, “Emma Smith was one of God’s 
noble women—she was truth personifed; and anything that 
Emma Smith may say you can bank on it until the day of 
your death.” “Well,” I said, “she testifies that her husband 
never had any wife but her; she testifies that she never heard 
of that revelation on polygamy until you folks had gone to Salt 
Lake; she testifies she never saw it, and she testifies that it is an 
unmitigated falsehood manufactured by Brigham Young; that he 
stated that she had the revelation and burned it. Now what 


34 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


have you to say to that?” I said. She looked me fair in the 
face and said, “You can afford to build on anything that 
Emma Smith has to say.” “Thank you,” said I. 

It is true that she told me she was married to Joseph 
Smith May 1, 1843; but when I showed her that the so-called 
revelation permitting a plurality of wives was dated July 12, 
1843, and referred to her former testimony as given in the 
Historical Record, and that given under oath in the Temple 
Lot suit, she was confounded. I felt sorry for the old lady as 
she sat silent and confounded. 

It is true that I saw a very old lady in your father’s par- 
lor, as she came slowly in for prayers. Your father said, “This 
is Catherine Phillips Smith. She was married to my father, 
Hyrum Smith, apd she has never married since. I am not 
sure that the old lady heard a word. It is certain that she 
did not testify to me, but it was your father who made the 
statement, and at once called us to prayer, thus preventing me 
from speaking to the old lady. 

Lorenzo Snow did testify to me, as stated; but then and 
there, in the presence of Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Can- 
non, I showed his testimony to be false, by his own evidence, 
when given under oath, and by his sister’s statement signed in 
1842. At this, Snow, Cannon and Smith were all much an- 
noyed. So much for your father’s statement, which says “you 
did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy.” 


YOUR FATHER’S FIRST WIFE 


You seem to feel sore over the statement that your father’s 
“first wife died broken hearted and insane;” and you add, 
“If you mean to insinuate that this condition, if true, was the 
result of any act whatever on the part of my father, it is also 
slanderously false.” I insinuate nothing; let the public judge 
the facts. Your father’s first wife was his cousin; she refused 
to consent to additional wives, and when he persisted in mar- 
rying the Lambson sisters, she obtained a divorce in Califor- 
nia. Julina and Edna Lambson were sisters and were married 
to Joseph F. Smith on the same day.* 


shadow of reason for uttering it. President Smith’s first wife did not refuse 
*This whole statement is absolutely false, and there was not the least 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 35 


Number of wives married to Joseph F. Smith since 


ONDE eccalie =1 2: SR RR a SE Re eee eee 6 
Number of children born to him in 38 years_____ Sy FA, 
Number of children born since plural marriage was 

PureiC RE Tn mEOU Ae 2 ese DN) SLATES 
Children of Julina Lambson Smith. 2 
@hildren of Sarah Richards Smith. aye 
Giidren of Pdna Lambson Smith 
bildren of Alice Kimball Smith = 3 
@inidren of Mary Schwartz Smith == eae: 
Estimated income available for supporting five es- 

PIIMIEHEN Fee seer eke Se, as eS a Bae ooo 
Corporations, banks and factories of which Joseph F. 

animes renrcctors Selb N eo) 20 


Only Mormon Apostle who surpasses the record of Presi- 
dent Smith is M. W. Merrill, with 8 wives, 45 children, and 
156 grandchildren—Collier’s for March 26, 1894 [1904]. 


While in Utah I was informed that your father’s first wife 
died broken hearted and insane. God and civilization know 
that a woman who loved her husband from youth up has enough 
to break her heart and send her insane when that husband will 
marry two other women, both sisters, in one day. 

Perhaps you will be assisted to view the matter as I do, 
should you read the following in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 
2:6, 7. Here it is stated, in consequence of polygamy, “ye 
have broken the hearts of your tender wives.” Does this 
make the prophet an asperser or a scandalmonger? 

I have answered your letter as it appeared in the Toronto 
Star as fully as space would permit. 

Respectfully, 
Toronto, Ontario, March 1, 1905.* R. C. Evans. 


*This letter is dated March 1, 1905, but was not written until some- 
time after April 19, 1905, for on the latter date Mr. Evans wrote: “You may 
look for reply to your letter as it appeared in the Toronto Star, as soon as I 
have time to reply thereto. This reply was received May 5, 1905. 


to consent to additional wives. He did not marry two sitsers on the same 
day. In depending on the unreliable Alfred Henry Lewis for his argument, 
Mr. Evans shows the desperate weakness of his position. It would be a hard 
matter to squeeze more falsehoods in the space occupied by the article of 
A. H. Lewis, from which Mr. Evans quotes so faithfully. 


36 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


A REJOINDER TO MR. R. C. EVANS’ LETTER 


Salt Lake City, May 23, 1905. 
Mr. R. C. Evans, 


Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church. 

Sir:—Your reply to my open letter of February 17 was 
received May 5. Whether I was “fair, dispassionate and also 
candid” in my letter, or, as you seem to think, “guilty of a 
labored effort to cover up the true facts regarding ‘blood 
atonement, polygamy, etc.,” and “your faith’—which was not 
discussed—I am perfectly willing to leave to the judgment of 
“those who read” the same in the Toronto Star. So on this 
point we may both rest satisfied. 


BLOOD ATONEMENT 


I will now consider your “labored effort to cover up the 
true facts regarding blood atonement.” 

In my letter I candidly placed the true belief and teach- 
ings of the Latter-day Saints in relation to this doctrine be- 
fore you. This fact appears to be displeasing to you, as it 
overturns your conclusions and accusations against our people. 
If you desire to know the correct position of the Church on 
this doctrine, I would recommend a careful study of John 
Taylor’s Mediation and Atonement and Charles W. Penrose’s 
Blood Atonement, which was published in answer to such wicked 
misrepresentations as I claim you have made in relation to this 
principle and our belief in relation thereto. There is no reason 
for any person to misunderstand our position, unless he desires 
to do so. I claim, too, that we are in a better position to teach 
that which we believe than is the stranger who attempts to 
present our case, especially if he is antagonistic or unfriendly. 

If you do not believe the doctrine of blood atonement as 
that doctrine is taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 
day Saints, which church you are pleased to call “Utah Mormon- 
ism,” then I say that you do not believe in the atonement of our 
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To this I will refer later. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 37 


You delight—as all anti-“Mormons” do—in referring to 
statements made by President Brigham Young, Jedediah M. 
Grant and others during the troublous times preceding the 
advent of Johnston’s army into Utah. I see, too, that like 
many others, you place your own desired interpretation on 
their remarks, place them before the public in a garbled state, 
taking care to give the darkest interpretation possible from 
which the public may gather false conclusions. You take great 
pains to cover up the conditions prevailing which called forth 
such extreme and in some instances unwise remarks. Conditions 
im some respects akin to those surrounding the Saints in Mis- 
souri in 1838-39 when other unwise remarks were made by 
members of the leading quorums of the Church, but in a sense 
justifiable and which should be condoned under the trying 
circumstances that called them forth. 

THE CHURCH JUDGED FROM ITS ACCEPTED STANDARDS 

Writing on this subject Elder B. H. Roberts, in his criti- 
cism on Harry Leon Wilson’s plagarisms in his Lions of the 
Lord, declares the position taken by members of the Church 


and all fair-minded men in these words: 

I am not so blind in my admiration of the “Mormon” people or so 
bigoted in my devotion to the “Mormon” faith as to think there are no 
individuals in the Church chargeable with fanaticism, folly, intemperate 
speech, and wickedness; nor am I blind to the fact that some in their over- 
zeal have lacked judgment; and that in times of excitement, under stress 
of special provocation, even “Mormon” leaders have given utterances to ideas 
that are indefensible. But I have yet to learn that it is just in a writer of 
history, or of “purpose fiction,” that “speak truly,” to make a collection of 
these things and represent them as the essence of that faith against which 
said writer draws an indictment. 

“No one would measure the belief of ‘Christians,’ ” says a truly great 
writer, “by certain statements in the Fathers, nor judge the moral principles 
of Roman Catholics by prurient quotations from the casuist; nor yet esti- 
mate Lutherans by the utterances and deeds of the early successors of Luther, 
nor Calvinists by the burning of Servetus. In all such cases the general 
standpoint of the times has to be first taken into account.”—Edeshiem’s Life 
and Times of Jesus the Messiah, preface p. 8. 

A long time ago the great Edmund Burke in his defense of the rashness 
expressed in both speech and action of some of our patriots of the American 
revolution period said: “It is not fair to judge of the temper or the disposition 
of any man or any set of men when they are composed and at rest from 
their conduct or their expressions in a state of disturbance and irritation.” 
The justice of Burke’s assertion has never been questioned, and without any 
wresting whatever it may be applied to “Mormon” leaders who sometimes 


38 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


spoke and acted under the recollection of rank injustice perpetrated against 
themselves and their people; or to rebuke rising evils against which their 
souls revolted. 


Even the president of the Reorganized Church recognized 
this fact in his answer to The American Baptist, wherein he 
said: 


Whoever counseled or did evil in those times (in Missouri) are respon- 
sible, personally, therefor; but the church, as such is no more responsible 
for it than were the early Christians for Peter’s attempt to kill the high 
priest’s servant when he cut off his ear with his sword. The church, as such, 
should be judged by its authorized doctrines and deeds, and not by the unau- 
thorized sayings or doings of some or many of its members or ministers. 


It is not to be wondered at that in those times when the mebryo au- 
thors and abbettors of the “Border Ruffianism” that reigned in Missouri and 
Kansas from 1854 to 1865 had matters all their own way, that some of the 
Saints, vexed, confused and excited, should have done many things unwisely 
and wrongfully, and contrary to the law of God.—Saints Herald, 37:51. 


With this I heartily agree. 


Now, when the statements were made, which you in a 
garbled manner both quote and misquote, there was in Utah a 
class of individuals who spent the greater part of their time in 
circulating wicked and malicious reports about the Saints, 
threatening their lives, committing crimes and attempting to 
make the Saints their scape-goats.. The officers of the law 
were General Government officials appointed by the President 
of the United States, and, I am sorry to say, some of these were 
among the chief villifiers of the people. The most damnable 
and bloodthirsty falsehoods were cooncocted and served up to the 
people of the United States to stir them up to anger against the 
“despised Mormons.” Almost every crime that was committed 
within a thousand miles of Salt Lake City was charged to the 
leaders of the “Mormon” people and became the foundation of a 
multitude of anti-“Mormon” publications that still flood the world. 
Because of these false and highly colored tales, in 1857—one year 
later than the time that most of the utterances were given on 
which you so delight to dwell—the Government of the United 
States sent an army to suppress in Utah a rebellion that never 
existed, and forced the Saints to defend themselves. When the 
Government found out how it had blundered it was humiliated. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 39 


Now, in brief, these were the conditions at the time, and is it 
any wonder that unwise and even harsh things were said? 
The wonder is that the people bore it as patiently as they did. 
The officers were non-‘Mormons,” the Territory was under Fed- 
eral control and contained many Gentiles, many of whom were 
most bitter in their feelings and ever ready to accuse the Saints of 
crime. The government was strong enough to enforce the law 
if broken. Now, I ask you if you believe the horrors, as they 
have been pictured, could have existed under such conditions? 


Such a state of affairs would have been a reproach and a 
shame to the American government. And no such state of 
affairs existed. 


The conditions at the time led Jacob Forney, superintendent 
of Indian affairs in Utah, to declare in 1869: 


I fear, and I regret to say it, that with certain parties here there is a 
greater anxiety to connect Brigham Young and other Church dignitaries with 
every criminal offense than diligent endeavor to punish the actual per- 
petrators of crime. 


Bancroft’s History of Utah, p. 561. 
Whitney’s History of Utah, p. 108, vol. 1. 


Mr. Forney was a Gentile official and the truth of this 
statement can be relied upon. 


This being the case, Brigham Young and the “Mormon” 
people could not have engaged in the crimes charged against 
them. 


In connection with this let me quote from Bancroft: 


It is not true that Mormons are not good citizens, lawabiding and pa- 
triotic. Even when hunted down, and robbed and butchered by the enemies 
to their faith, they have not retaliated. On this score they are naturally very 
sore. When deprived of those sacred rights given to them in common with 
all American citizens, when disfranchised, their homes broken up, their 
families scattered, their husband and father seized, fined and imprisoned, 
they have not defended themselves by violence but have left their cause to 
God and their country.—History of Utah, pp. 390-392. 


Again, I repeat, that the presence in Utah of apostates and 
anti-"Mormons” from the beginning and “that there are men 
living in Utah today who left the Church in the earliest history 
of our State, who feel as secure and are just as secure and 
free from molestation from their former associates as you or 


40 | BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


any other man could be,” proves the falseness of the malicious 
accusation that “Utah was for years a land of assassination and 


a field of blood.” 
MR. EVANS’ FALSE QUOTATIONS 
In your first quotation from President Young: 


What shall be done with the sheep that stink the flock so? We will 
take them, I was going to say, and cut off their tails two inches behind 
their ears; however I will use a milder term, and say cut off their ears. 


Your conclusion is most certainly far fetched. Had you 
continued the quotation your attempt would have appeared 
even more ridiculous. The next sentence is: 


But instead of doing this, we will try to cleanse them;’and will wash 
them with soap; that will come nigh taking off the skin; we will then apply 
a little Scotch snuff, and a little tobacco, and wash them again until we 
make them clean. 


And you try to make this appear as threatening life! It 
is apparent that your sense of humor has been sadly neglected. 
This whole passage is humorous and you make yourself ridiculous 
by not having discovered it. 


Again, from Parley P. Pratt, you quote: 
My feelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly and firmly so. 
This from page 84. Then you skip to page 86 and add: 


I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they have been 
faithfully warned. 


Then three paragraphs off, the following: 


It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such an out- 
cast has the truth. 


This method of proving things reminds me of the reason 
why you should be hanged: 


And Judas “went out and hanged himself.” 
“Go thou and do likewise.” 


Now let me quote some extracts from this discourse which 
you purposely left out. 


Sooner than be subjected to a repetition of these wrongs, I for one, 
would rather march out today and be shot down. These are my feelings, 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 41 


and have been for some time. Talk about liberty of conscience! Have not 
men liberty of conscience here? Yes. The Presbyterian, Methodists, Quakers, 
etc., have here the liberty to worship God in their own way, and so has every 
man in the world. People have the privilege of apostatizing from this 
Church and worshiping devils, snakes, toads, or geese, if they please, and 
only let their neighbors alone. But they have not the privilege to disturb 
the peace, nor to endanger life or liberty; that is the idea. If they will take 
that privilege, I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they 
have been faithfully warned. 


Again: 

He (Gladden Bishop) was disfellowshiped, and received on his profes- 
sions of repentance, so often, that the Church at length refused to admit him 
any more as a member. These apostates talk of proof! Have we not proved 
Joseph Smith to be a prophet, a restorer, standing at the head of this dispensa- 


tion? Have we not proved the priesthood which he placed upon others by 
the command of God? 


I see no ground, then, to prove or to investigate the calling of an apos- 
tate, who has always been trying to impose upon this people. If is too late 
tm the day for us to stop and inquire whether such an outcast has the truth. 

We have truths already developed, unfulfilled by us—unacted upon. 
There are-more truths poured out from the eternal fountain, already than our 
minds can contain, or that we have places or preparations to carry out. And 
yet we are called upon to prove—what? Whether an egg that was known to 
be rotten fifteen years ago, has really improved by reason of age! 

“You are going to be destroyed,” say they. “Destruction awaits this city.” 
Well! what if we are? We are as able to be destroyed as any people living. 
What care we whether we are destroyed or not? These old tabernacles will 


die of themselves, if left alone. 


We have nothing to fear on that head, for we are as well prepared to die 
as to live. One thing we have heard today, and I am glad to hear it. We 
shall not be destroyed in the old way—as we have been heretofore. We shall 
have a change in the manner, at least. We shall probably be destroyed stand- 
ing, this time, and not in a sitting, or lying position. We can die as well as 
others who are not as well prepared! I am glad that while we do live we 
shall not submit to be yoked or saddled like a dumb ass. We shall not stand 
still to see men, women, and children murdered, robbed, plundered, and 
driven any more, as in the States heretofore. Nor does God require it at 
our hands. That is the best news we have heard today. * * * * 


It is not enough for people to have liberty to worship according to 
sectarianism, Judaism, heathenism, and every thing else, but they wish the 
liberty to stab you to the heart. 

It is the policy not to wait till you are killed, but act on the defensive 
while you still live. I have said enough on this subject—pp. 86-87. 


The vicious malignancy of a depraved mind is made so 
apparent in this contrast between your garbled quotations and 


42 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


the whole truth, that it scarcely deserves further comment. 

I have quoted quite extensively in order to show the 
reason for these remarks of which you quote such brief and 
disjointed extracts. You should remember that the Saints had 
but a short time before been driven from their homes at 
the cannon’s mouth, and were forced to traverse a desert under 
the most trying circumstances to find a new abode where they 
could rest in peace and call their souls their own. When fol- 
lowed, as they were, by a miserable class that were determined 
to again have them driven, where heaven only knows, in their 
might and righteous indignation they firmly took their stand 
for home and liberty. I for one, say that they were justified in 
this course, the protection of their liberty, honor and lives. Had 
the threats of their enemies here in Utah been carried out as 
they boasted that they would be, and as they were carried out 
in Missouri and Illinois, then Brigham Young and his people 
would have been as thoroughly justified in unsheating the bowie 
knife, to conquer or die, as were the patriots at Lexington and 
Bunker Hill! 

Home and liberty and life, with the right to worship God, 
are just as dear to a “Mormon” as to members of any other 
denomination or even an apostate “Mormon,” and when the 
“Mormons” are persecuted, driven and slain and forced to seek 
a home in the savage wilds, would any honest man blame them 
if they declined to move again? 

Why is it worse for “Utah Mormons” to defend them- 
selves than for “Mormons” at Crooked river and Nauvoo? Even 
the noble Prophet Joseph Smith, when dragged from home 
and persecuted by wicked men, solemnly demurred. Said he to 
the Saints at Nauvoo on the oth day of June, 1843, after his 
escape from Missourian assassins: 


Before I will be dragged away again among my enemies for trial, J will 
spill the last drop of blood in my veins and will see all my enemies in hell! 
To bear it any longer would be a sin, and I will not bear it any longer. 
Shall we bear it any longer? (one universal, No! ran through all the vast 
assembly like a loud peal of thunder.) * * * If mobs come upon you 
any more here, dung your gardens with them. We don’t want any excite- 
ment; but after we have done all, we will rise up Washington-like and break 
off the hellish yoke that oppresses us, and will not be mobbed! 


I have copied this from the manuscript history of the 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 43 


Prophet Joseph Smith, as it was recorded at the time. I have 
learned also that it is corroborated by the journal of Wilford 
Woodruff of the same date—June 30th, 1843. 


UTAH NOT A FIELD OF BLOOD 


_ You say “I have read that which leads me to believe that 
under Brighamism’”—as you slurringly remark—“Utah was for 
years a land of assassination and a field of blood,” and then you 
ask me, “what of the Mountain Meadows massacre,—the destruc- 
tion of the Aiken party; the dying confession of Bishop J. D. Lee; 
the Hickman butcheries; the Danites?” 

Well, that which you have read counts for but little when 
the source is considered. Your case is most certainly desperate 
when you are forced to accept the statements of murderers. 

It’s a strange thing that you and many of your elders ac- 
cept all the blood-curdling tales from Beadle, Stenhouse and 
other apostate sources when they happen to refer to Brigham 
Young and “Utah Mormons,” and denounce the same sources 
when they refer to the Prophet Joseph Smith. Yet, I repeat, the 
same class of charges—in many respects identical—that you charge 
against Brigham Young, of murder, bloodshed, adultery, and 
even Danties, were first made by bitter enemies of the Church 
before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that just 
such falsehoods brought about the bitterness that resulted in his 
death. 

You resort to sources that even the editor of your official 
paper denounces as “Idle and vicious stories gathered from the 
awful files of terrible tales told about the Mormons, by those at 
enmity with them.”—Saints Herald 52:2. 

If you desire to know the character of Christ do you accept 
the statements of the Roman guard at the sepulchre? the Jew 
with blood-stained hands who rejoices in his death? and the 
anti-Christian? Wherein then, is your consistency in asking me 
to accept the testimony of those whose hands are imbrued in 
blood, apostates and bitter enemies of my people? 

Very well then, I return your question. What about them? 
Pray tell, what about the Mountain Meadows massacre? the 
Aiken party? the confessions of Lee? (by the way, the fact that 
you call him a “Bishop” proves the source of your information); 


44 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


what about Hickman and above all, the Danties? 


When Alfred Henry Lewis, in Collier's Weekly of March 
26, 1904, stated, “Brigham Young invented his destroying angels, 
placed himself at their head, and when a man rebelled had him 
murdered, if one fled the fold, he was pursued and slain,” he 
repeated one of the most collossal falsehoods ever uttered. Nor 
is that the only falsehood in his article you are pleased to quote. 


Brigham Young was not a man of blood. The “Mormon” 
people were not guilty of the Mountain Meadows massacre.* 
There was no destruction of an Aiken party. Hickman and 
Lee are not worth the mention; and the Danties! Had you 
not better read Church history of 1838? In Utah there never 
were destroying angels or Danties, except in the imagination of 
bitter anti-“Mormons” and I am satisfied that Mr. R. C. Evans 


knows that fact. 


CHARACTER OF THE “MORMONS” 


In answer to your many charges about Utah and the 
“Mormons,” I desire to refer to credible references from witnesses 
who understood the truth and were bold enough to express it. 


Last winter there was a census taken of the Utah Penitentiary and the 
Salt Lake City and county prisons with the following result:—In Salt Lake 
City there are about 75 Mormons to 25 non-Mormons; in Salt Lake County 


*Writing of the Mountain Meadows massacre Hubert H. Bancroft, in 
his History of Utah, page 544 says: “Indeed it may as well be understood 
at the outset that this horrible crime, so often and so persistently charged 
upon the Mormon church and its leaders, was the crime of an individual, the 
crime of a fanatic of the worst stamp, one who was a member of the Mor- 
mon church, but of whose intentions the church knew nothing, and whose 
bloody acts the members of the church, high and low, regard with as much 
abhorrence as any out of the church. Indeed, the blow fell upon the broth- 
erhood with threefold force and damage. There was the cruelty of it, which 
wrung their hearts; there was the odium attending its performance in their 
midst; and there was the strength it lent their enemies further to malign and 
molest them. The Mormons denounce the Mountain Meadows massacre, and 
every act connected therewith, as earnestly and as honestly as any in the 
outside world. This is abundantly proved, and may be accepted as a his- 


torical fact.” 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 45 


there are about 80 Mormons to 20 non-Mormons; yet in the city prison there 
were 29 convicts, all non-Mormons. In the county prison there were 6 con- 
victs all non-Mormons. The jailer stated that the county convicts for the 
five years past were all anti-Mormons except three! * St 


Out of the 200 saloon, billiard, bowling alley and pool table keepers not 
over a dozen even profess to be Mormons. All of the bagnios and other dis- 
reputable concerns in the territory are run and sustained by non-Mormons. 
Ninety-eight per cent of the gamblers in Utah are of the same element. 


* * * Of the 250 towns and villages in Utah, over 200 have no “gaudy 
sepulchre of departed virtue,’ and these two hundred and odd towns are 
almost exclusively Mormons in population. Of the suicides committed in 
Utah ninety odd per cent are non-Mormons, and of the Utah homicides and 
infanticides over 80 per cent are perpetrated by the 17 per cent of “out 
siders.”"—Phil Robinson, in Sinners and Saints, p. 72. 


The Logan police force is a good-tempered looking young man. There 
is another to help him, but if they had not something else to do they would 
either have to keep on arresting each other, in order to pass the time, or else 
combine to hunt gophers and chipmunks.—Sinners and Saints, p. 142. 


Whence have the public derived their opinions about Mormonism? 
From anti-Mormons only. I have ransacked the literature of the subject, and 
yet I really could not tell any one where to go for an impartial book about 
Mormonism, later in date than Burton’s “City of the Saints,’ published in 
1862. * * * But put Burton on one side and I think I can defy any 
one to name another book about the Mormons worthy of honest respect. 
From that truly awful book, “The History of the Saints,” published by one 
Bennet (even an anti-Mormon has styled him “the greatest rascal that ever 
came to the west,’’) in 1842, down to Stenhouse’s in 1873, there is not, to 
my knowledge a single Gentile work before the public that is not utterly 
unreliable from its distortion of facts. Yet it is from these books—for there 
are no others—that the American public has acquired nearly all its ideas 
about the people of Utah—Sinners and Saints, p. 245. 


And in relation to opposing evidence, almost every book that has been 
put forth respecting the people of Utah by one not a Mormon, is full of 
calumny, each author apparently endeavoring to surpass his predecessor in 
the libertinism of abuse. Most of these are written in a sensational style, and 
for the purpose of deriving profit by pandering to a vitiated public taste, and 
are wholly unreliable as to facts——Bancroft’s History of Utah, preface page 7. 


It is only fair to state that no Gentile, even the unprejudiced, who are 
rare aves, however long he may live or intimately he may be connected with 
Mormons, can expect to see anything but the superficie. * * 


The Mormons have been represented, and are generally believed to be, 
an intolerant race. I found the reverse far nearer the fact. The best proof 
of this is that there is hardly one anti-Mormon publication, however untruth- 


46 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


ful, violent, or scandalous, which I did not find in Great Salt Lake City. 
—Burton’s City of the Saints, p. 203. 

I have not yet heard the single charge against them as a community, 
against their habitual purity of life, their integrity of dealing, their 
toleration of religious differences in opinion, their regard for the laws, or 
their devotion to the Constitutional government under which we live, 
that I do not from my own observation, or the testimony of others know - 
to be unfounded.—General Thomas L. Kane, U. S. A., The Mormons, 
p. 83. 

The Mormons are sober, industrious and thrifty—Bishop Spaulding, 
of the Episcopalian Church, in the Forum, March, 1887. 


Had the Mormons been a low, corrupt or shiftless people they never 

would or could have done what they did in Utah. * * * 
When they controlled their own city of Salt Lake it contained no saloons, 
gambling houses or places of ill repute, and when the town had grown to 
be a goodly city order was kept there by two constables. If by their 
fruits we may know them, the Mormons deserve our confidence and 
praise.—The Brooklyn Eagle, editorial of Aug. 12, 1897. 

I shall not arraign the Mormon people as wanting in comparison 
with other people in religious devotion, virtue, honesty, sobriety, in- 
dustry, and the graces and qualities that adorn, beautify and bless 
life—Caleb W. West, Governor of Utah (and a strong anti-Mormon) 
in report to Secretary of the Interior for 1888. 

I know the people of the east have judged the Mormons unjustly. 
They have many traits worthy of admiration. I know them to be hon- 
est, faithful, prayerful workers—D. S. Tuttle, Bishop Episcopalian 
Church. 

I never met a people so free from sensualism and immorality of every 
kind as the Mormons are. Their habits of life are a thousand per cent 
superior to those who denounce them so bitterly—Mrs. Olive N. Robinson. 
(I recommend this to you.) 


I assure you there are many others of equal force but this 
should be sufficient to prove the scandalous effusions false that 
you profess to believe true. 


GAGGING AT A GNAT 


I am glad you profess to believe the Bible. There is one 
other thing which appears strange to me, that is, why you are 
continually denouncing Brigham Young and “Utah Mormonism,” 
and calling Utah a “land of assassination and a field of blood,” 
because vile men without conscientious scruples have accused the 
people of many false and lurid tales of blood, and at the same 
time with sanctimonious countenance and upturned eyes you 
swallow the following without a gulp: 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE AT 


“Thus saith the Lord of hosts = ~ Now go up and smite 
Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; 
but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel 
and ass.” I Samuel 15:3 (I. T.) 

Haven’t you swallowed the camel and gagged at his tail? 


THE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT 


Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. 
What is that doctrine? Unadulterated if you please, laying aside 
the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often 
been made. It is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ 
all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordi- 
nances of the Gospel. This salvation is two-fold; General,—that 
which comes to all men irrespective of a belief in Christ—and 
Individual,—that which man merits through his own acts through 
life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. 
But man may commit certain grievous sins—according to his light 
and knowledge—that will place him beyond the reach of the 
atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must 
make sacrifice of his own life to atone—so far as in his power 
lies—for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain 
circumstances will not avail. 

Do you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you 
do not believe in the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ! 
This is the doctrine you are pleased to call the “blood atone- 
ment of Brighamism.” This is the doctrine of Christ our Re- 
deemer, who died for us. This is the doctrine of Joseph Smith, 
and I accept it. 

In whose stead did Christ die? I wish your church mem- 
bers could be fair enough to discuss this subject on its merits. 

I again recommend you to a careful reading of the quota- 
tions in my open letter. You will find them as follows: Book 
of Mormon,—II Nephi 9:35. Alma 1:13, 14, and 42: 19. Bible, 
—Genesis 9:12, 13, (I. T.) Luke 11:50. Hebrews 9:22 and 
10:26-29. I John 3:15 and 5:16. Doctrine and Covenants,— 
87:7. tor:80. 42:18, 19, 79. (Utah edition.) 


To these I will add: 


“Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by 
the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any 
person to cause him to die. 


48 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which 
is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death. 

So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood it defileth 
the land; and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed there- 
in, but by the blood of him that shed it.’—Numbers 35:30, 31, 33- 
(ete) : 


Do you want a few references of where men were right- 
eously slain to atone for their sins? What about the death of 
Nehor? (Alma 1:15) Zemnariah and his followers (III Nephi 
4:27-28). What about Er and Onan, whom the Lord slew? 
(Gen. 38:7, 10), of Nadab and Abihu? (Lev. 10:2) and the 
death of Achan? (Joshua 7:25). 

Were not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? 
And it was of this class of cases that President Young referred 
in his discourse you misquote (Journal of Discourses 4:220). 
He tells us so, in the same discourse in the portion which you 
did not quote. It is: 


“Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the 
Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of 
Egypt except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hand of 
their enemies, by the plague and by the sword. Why? Be- 
cause he loved them and promised Abraham he would save 
them.” 


POLYGAMY 


In using the term “ploygamy” in reference to the principle 
that was taught and practiced by the Saints, I desire it distinctly 
understood that I use it in the sense of a man having more than 
one wife. Polygamy, in the sense of plurality of husbands and 
of wives never was practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints in Utah or elsewhere; but Celestial marriage— 
including a plurality of wives—was introduced by the Prophet 
Joseph Smith and was practiced more generally by the saints under 
the administration of President Brigham Young. 


You say that you have no evidence that those men, vz. 
Lyman Wight, James J. Strang, Gladden Bishop, William Smith 
and others that I mentioned to you “practiced polygamy” before 
plural marriage was “introduced” (as claimed by you) by Brigham 


*See also Doctrine and Covenants section 101; 80, on this point. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 49 


Young. You said polygamy was “introduced” eight years after 
the Prophet’s death by Brigham Young. If so, then why did 
these men practice it before that time? I was satisfied that you 
would not exert yourself in seeking for this knowledge and 
tried to help you find the information. 


POLYGAMY IN THE “FACTIONS” 


In a letter written by the President of the Reorganized 
church to Mr. Joseph Davis, of Wales, dated Lamoni, Oct. 13, 
1899, I read: 


Nearly all the factions into which the church broke had plural marriage 
in some form. None in the form instituted by President Young. Sidney 
Rigdon had one form practiced by but a few, and that spasmodically, as an 
outburst of religious fervor rather than as a settled practice. William Smith 
had a sort of Priestess Lodge, in which it was alleged there was a 
manifestation of licentiousness. ‘This he denied, and I never had actual 
proof of it. Gladden Bishop taught something like it, but I believe he 
was himself the only practicer. James J. Strang had a system something 
like Mohamet, four I think, being allowed the king. Lyman Wight had a 
system but it had no very extended range. President Young’s system 
you may know of. 


It is true that William Smith denied that he taught 
“polygamy” but that he practiced plural marriage he cannot deny. 
Jason W. Briggs said he (William) did, and that is why Mr. 
Briggs left his church. Plaintiff’s Abstract, Temple Lot suit, p. 
395- Hist. of Reorg. Ch. vol. 3:200 and The Messenger, vol. 2. 
William entered into plural marriage in the Prophet’s day and 
his wives lived here in Utah. They are Precilla M. Smith, Sarah 
Libby and Hannah Libby. One of these is still living. 


The third volume of your church history says of Lyman 
Wight: 


Lyman Wight lived and died an honorable man, respected well by 
those who knew him best. The only thing that can be urged against his 
character is that about 1845 or 1846 he entered into the practice of 
polygamy, but we have seen no record of any teaching of his upon the 
subject. 


The fact is that Lyman Wight entered into that relation 
before the time here mentioned. Affidavits in this seers can 
be produced but it will be unnecessary. 


That John E. Page practiced “polygamy” I have the testi- 


50 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


mony of his wife, Mrs. Mary Eaton of Independence, who told 
me and others, in August 1904, that se gave her husband, 
John E. Page other wives. 


These men did not follow anita Young, but denounced 
him, yet they practiced plural marriage and did not get that 
doctrine from him. 


THE TESTIMONY OF A BOGUS WIFE 


The “testimony” you submit from President Young’s “legal 
wife” is spurious. It matters not if you did receive the “informa- 
tion” from your uncle. The poor man was tricked and deceived. 
Bogus “wives” and “daughters” of President Young have 
“worked” the public before. Mary Ann Angel Young, President 
Young’s legal wife, was not in Colorado in 1860 and 1861. She 
never was divorced and died in this city true to her husband, his 
family and the faith, on the 27th day of June, 1882. (News, 
July 5, 1882). So much for this “bogus” testimony. 


TESTIMONY IMPEACHED 


The testimony of T. B. H. and Fanny Stenhouse is suf- 
ficiently impeached in the Saints Herald, vol. 52, p. 2; 20, p. 
602, and Sinners and Saints, p. 245. The woman’s bitterness 
would condemn her writings. However I will mention one state- 
ment—you make Mrs. Stenhouse say: “It is reported by Fanny 
Stenhouse and many others, that Joseph Smith said, ‘If ever the 
Church had the misfortune to be led by Bro. Brigham, he would 
lead it to hell.’” She gives this as a rumor that is “reported,” so 
do the “many others” who are mostly from your church. Oh, 
yes, I have heard of this before. But do you know where the 
report originated? It originated with the apostate and would-be 
assassin, Robert D. Foster, who threatened the Prophet Joseph’s 
life in 1844, and who was one of the incorporators and advocates 
of the notorious Nauvoo Expositor, and one of the chief actors in 
bringing about the martyrdom, June 27, 1844. In a toadying 
letter to your president, dated February 14, 1874, he said the 
Prophet “remarked, in the presence of Mr. Law, Bishop Knight, 
John P. Greene, Reynolds Cahoon, and some others, that if ever 
Brigham Young became the leader of the Church, he would 
lead them down to hell.” 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 51 


MARVELOUS GROWTH OF THE CHURCH 


I decline to accept the statements of such a character; be- 
sides, President Young did not lead the Church to hell, but 
preserved it, and under his direction it grew, expanded, and 
accomplished a wonderful, even a miraculous work. In the 
reclamation of the arid west, the permanent establishment of 
prosperous communities in the desert wilds, and for their unity, 
strength, and industrial and temporal independence, the “Mor- 
mon” people are today the marvel, if not the admiration of 
the thinking world. They came here with nothing but the 
good will of God. They began in poverty, and “having almost 
nothing to invest,” says Mr. William E. Smythe in The Conquest 
of Arid America, “except the labor of their hands and brains, and . 
that all they have expended in a period of fifty years for all 
classes of improvements—from the first shanty to the last turret 
of the last temple—came primarily from the soil.” 


TESTIMONY OF MR. SMYTHE 
Again he says in the same work: 


Nowhere else has the common prosperity been reared upon firmer 
foundations. Nowhere else are institutions more firmly buttressed or 
better capable of resisting violent economic revolutions. The thunder cloud 
that passed over the land in 1893, leaving a path of commercial ruin from 
the Atlantic to the Pacific, was powerless to close the door of a single 
Mormon store, factory or bank. Strong in prosperity, the co-operative in- 
dustrial and commercial system stood immovable in the hour of wide- 
spread disaster. The solvency of these industries is scarcely more striking 
than the solvency of the farmers from whom they draw their strength. No 
other governor, either in the West or in the East, is able to say what the 
Honorable Heber M. Wells said in assuming the chief magistracy of the 
new state in January, 1896, “We have in Utah,” said the young governor, 
“9,816 farms, and 17,584 of them are absolutely free from incumbrance.” 
A higher percentage in school attendance and lower percentage of illiterates 
than even in the State of Massachusetts, is another of Utah’s proud record. 
Peis 


THE GUIDANCE OF JEHOVAH 


Without the divine guidance and the constant watchcare of 
Jehovah over the destinies of the “Mormon” pioneers, with 
Brigham Young at their head, the West today would be but a 
barren wilderness. Under the leadership of Brigham Young 
the “Mormon” people prospered, and he left them in a better 


52 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


condition temporally and physically, and spiritually more united 
and more firmly established in the faith than they ever were 
before. Where among the so-called “factions” can you point to 
one that has accomplished the hundredth part of what the fol- 
lowers of Brigham Young have accomplished? They have all 
practically disappeared but one—gone to their destruction. And 
the one that remains will dissolve and disappear as surely as the 
sun shines. You cannot fight the work of God and prosper. 


WILLIAM MARKS 


The testimony of William Marks—a man who was out of 
harmony with the Prophet before the latter’s death! This testi- 
mony of William Marks sounds too suspicious, given as it was, 
when it was, and describing an alleged conversation which never 
could have taken place. “The reader will please notice,” said 
David Whitmer in his Address (p. 41), “this fact in regard to 
William Marks’ statement; and that is, the time when Brother 
Joseph told him that polygamy must be put down in the 
Church.” That time was a “few days” before the Prophet’s death. 


True, the Prophet was no “fool” (Herald 51: 74,) and such 
a “conversation” as this related by William Marks would have 
stamped him “foolish, irrational and a moral suicide,” because 
he could not bring a charge against others for that for which he 
was himself responsible. The Prophet had plural wives, and had 
officiated in the ceremony of the sealing of plural wives to 
others. I have conversed with the principals in these cases, and 
know that they told the truth. Furthermore, Mr. Marks’ testi- 
mony condemns itself. He proves—if he proves anything at all— 
that the Prophet was responsible for this doctrine. This thought 
is in harmony with the early teachings of the original elders of 
the Reorganization, for the time was when even your elders 
acknowledged that the Prophet received the revelation on celestial 
(including plural) marriage. On this point David Whitmer says: 


As time rolled on, many of the Reorganization saw that to continue 
to acknowledge that Brother Joseph received the revelation would bring 
bitter persecution upon themselves, as the public feeling at that time was 
very bitter. . * ~* 5 * * The leaders of the Reorganized church, 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 53 


after a time, began to suppress their opinions concerning this matter. They 
would answer the question when asked about it “J do not know whether 


Joseph Smith received the revelation or not.” c 


THE “SAINTS HERALD” A WITNESS OF “POLYGAMY” 


Now, if it is true—and I claim it is—that the leaders of 
the Reorganized church acknowledged that the Prophet received 
the revelation and practiced that principle, there must be some 
proof. Turn to the first volume of the True L. D. S. Herald and 
read the editorial on pages 6 to 11. It is on polygamy. After 
trying to explain the reason why the Prophet taught and practiced 
this doctrine, the editor said: 


And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I, the 
Lord, have deceived the prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon 
him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. * * 
We have here the facts as they have transpired and as they will continue 
to transpire in relation to this subject. The death of the prophet is one 
fact that has been realized, although he abhorred and repented of this in- 
iquity before his death. Page 9. 


And on page 27: 


He (Joseph Smith) caused the Revelation to be burned, and when he 
voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms of his 
enemies, he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At that time he 
also said that if it had not been for that accursed spiritual wife doctrine, 
he would not have come to that. By his conduct at that time he proved 
the sincerity of his repentance, and of his profession’ as a prophet. If 
Abraham* and Jacob, by repentance, can obtain salvation and exaltation, 


so can Joseph Smith. 


Mark you, we have the evidence of the revelation from your 
own side and you well remember that but one could and did 
receive revelations. I do not accept the apology of your editor; 
I do not believe that the Prophet had the revelation burned, or 
called the doctrine accursed. My faith in Joseph Smith is such 
that if he had the revelation—which your witnesses declare he 
did—that it was from God as much as any other revelation he 


received! 


*A polygamist, the friend of God, whose praise you sing, and the 
man you are glad to call the father of the faithful—Saints Herald 52:437. 


54 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 
TESTIMONY OF JASON BRIGGS 


Jason W. Briggs, one of the founders of your church, in 
the Temple Lot suit, said: 

I heard something about a revelation on polygamy, or plural marriage, 
when I was in Nauvoo, in 1842. I heard there was one: there was talk 


going on about it at that time, and continued to be; but it was not 


called plural marriage; it was called sealing. 

You ask me what I understood this sealing to be, at the time the talk 
was going on. What I understood it to be was sealing a woman to a 
man to be his wife, to be his wife hereafter, his wife in the spirit world. 

I was asked in my direct examination if I did not hear of the doc- 
trine of polygamy, etc., and I answered that I talked with members with 
reference to sealing, and I understood that the doctrine of sealing, was for 
eternity; it was sealing a man’s wife to him for eternity, or wives, either. 


Record pp. 349, 431, 505. 
TESTIMONY OF JAMES WHITEHEAD 


James Whitehead said: 


There was an ordinance in the Church for sealing, as early as 1842 or 


1843. : 
They would be married according to the law of God, not only for 


time but for eternity as well. 
These men were among the founders of your church. 


SIDNEY RIGDON’S TESTIMONY 


Sidney Rigdon, in a lengthy letter to his official paper, 
The Messenger and Advocate, in 1845 declared that the Prophet 
was responsible for the plural marriage doctrine, and said: 

This system was introduced by the Smiths some time before their 


death, and was the thing which put them in the power of their enemies, 
and was the immediate cause of their death. p. 475, vol. 2. 


He says he “warned Joseph Smith and his family,” and told 
them that destruction would come upon them if they continued 
in their course. 


ORIGINAL RECORDS ON PLURALITY OF WIVES 


You “confidently affirm that there is not a single word in 
a single sermon, lecture, statement, newspaper or Church publica- 
tion printed during the life of Joseph Smith, wherein he by word 
has endorsed the doctrine of plurality of wives, not a single 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 55 


statement.” Whether any such statement was ever printed in his 
lifetime or not I am not prepared to say. But I do know of such 
evidence being recorded during his lifetime, for I have seen it. 


I have copied the following from the Prophet’s manuscript 
record of Oct. 5, 1843, and know it is genuine: 


Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teach- 
ing or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for according to the 
law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but 
one on earth at a time on whom this power and its keys are conferred; 
and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time un- 
less the Lord directs otherwise. 


There is also at the Historian’s office in this city, a Bible, 
which I have before me, containing the record of the marriage 
of Melissa Lott to the Prophet Joseph Smith, which was recorded 
at the time, September 20, 1843. This Bible also contains the 
record of the sealing of Cornelius P. and Parmelia Lott, parents 
of Melissa, which was done by Patriarch Hyrum Smith in the 
Prophet’s presence and with his “seal” or sanction. The president 
of your church has seen this record, and it matters not what he 
may say now he then acknowledged the genuineness of the record. 


The following is also copied from the journal of William 
Clayton which is in the Historian’s office: 


May ist, (1843) A.M. At the Temple. At 10 married Joseph to 
Lucy Walker. P. M. at Prest. Joseph’s; he has gone out with Woodsworth. 


This is the same William Clayton who wrote the revelation 
at the direction and from the dictation of the Prophet July 12, 
1843. However, this principle was first revealed to the Prophet 
several years before that time, as you learned in your conversation 
with President Lorenzo Snow, when you were in his office. 


MORE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED 


Right here we will consider the “evidence” you produce 
to show that “Joseph Smith and the Church during his life- 
time condemned polygamy in the strongest terms.” The testi- 
-mony of the thirty-one witnesses you “produce” was against 
the “secret wife system” of the vile John C. Bennett who was 


56 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


excommunicated for betraying female virtue. This Bennett 
system had nothing to do with the system of celestial marriage 
introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and was no more like 
the Prophet’s doctrine than darkness is like daylight. The 
certificate of these parties that you mention was given in October 
1842 (T. & S. 3:939), nearly one year before the revelation on 
celestial marriage was recorded. At that time the law of mar- 
riage in the Church was that adopted in 1835, and was binding 
on all who had not accepted the higher law, and they were few 
in number.* The best proof that these “witnesses” did not con- 
demn the celestial marriage doctrine of the prophet in this com- 
munication, is that out of the thirty-one, at least sixteen have 
testified that the Prophet introduced that system. One of this 
number of witnesses became the Prophet’s wife, one performed a 
marriage ceremony in which the Prophet was married to a plural 
wife, and one other was a witness to such a marriage ceremony. 
At least six testify that the Prophet taught them the principle of 
plural marriage and the others, so far as I know, are not on re- 
cord. That these witnesses were the dupes of Brigham Young 
cannot truthfully be said, for three of them left the Church and 
never followed Brigham Young, yet they testify of these things. 


The action of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, as recorded in 
the Times and Seasons (5:3), wherein Hyrum Brown was cut off 
the Church for preaching polygamy and other false doctrines, 
was just and timely. The same action would have been taken 
at any other period of the existence of the Church. Polygamy 
never was a doctrine of the Church, and the system introduced 
by the Prophet Joseph Smith was not called by that name in his 
day. Nor was the system of the Prophet the same as that of 
Hyrum Brown; and if it had been, the ruling of the Prophet of 
October 5, 1843, would have cost Brown his standing in the 


*These thirty-one witnesses were: S. Bennett, George Miller, Alpheus 
Cutler, Reynolds Cahoon, Wilson Law, Wilford Woodruff, Newel K. 
Whitney, Albert Petty, Elias Higbee, John Taylor, Ebenezer Robinson, 
Aaron Johnson, Emma Smith, Elizabeth A. Whitney, Sarah M. Cleveland, 
Eliza R. Snow, Mary C. Miller, Lois Cutler, Thirza Cahoon, Ann Hunter, 
Jane Law, Sophia Marks, Polly Z. Johnson, Abagail Works, Catharine Petty, 
Sarah Higbee, Phebe Woodruff, Leonora Taylor, Sarah Hillman, Rosanna 
Marks, and Angeline Robinson. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 57 


Church, the polygamy of Brown and John C. Bennett was of 
their own make. In relation to this subject, I will quote from the 
Life of John Taylor, pages 223-224: 


The polygamy and gross sensuality charged by Bennett and re- 
peated by those ministers in France, had no resemblance to celestial or 
patriarchal marriage which Elder Taylor knew existed at Nauvoo, and 
which he had obeyed. Hence in denying the false charges of Bennett, he 
did not deny the existence of that system of marriage that God had re- 
vealed; no more than a man would be guilty of denying the legal, genuine 
currency of the country by denying the genuineness and denouncing what 
he knew to be a mere counterfeit of it. 


Another illustration: Jesus took Peter, James and John into the 
mountain, and there met with Moses and Elias, and the glory of God 
shone about them, and these two angels talked with Jesus, and the voice 
of God was heard proclaiming Him to be the Son of God. After the 
glorious vision, as Jesus and His companions were descending the moun- 
tain, the former said: “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of Man 
be risen again from the dead.” Suppose one of these apostles had turned 
from the truth before the Son of Man was risen from the dead and under 
the influence of wicked, lying spirit, should charge that Jesus and some 
of his favorite apostles went up into a mountain, and there met Moses 
and Elias——or some persons pretending to represent them—together with 
a group of voluptuous courtesans, with whom they spent the day in 
licentious pleasure. If the other apostles denounced that as an infamous 
falsehood, would they be untruthful? No; they would not. Or would they 
be under any obligations when denying the falsehoods of the apostate to 
break the commandments the Lord had given them by relating just what 
had happened in the mountain? No; it would have been a breach of the 
Master’s strict commandment for them to do that. So with Elder Taylor. 
While he was perfectly right and truthful in denying the infamous charges 
repeated by his opponents, he was under no obligation and had no right to 
announce to the world, at that time the doctrine of celestial marriage. It 
was not the law of the Church, or even the law of the Priesthood of the 
Church; the body thereof at the time knew little or nothing of it, though 
it had been revealed to the Prophet and made known to some of his 
-most trusted followers. But today, now that the revelation on celestial 
marriage is published to the world, if the slanderous charges contained in 
the writings of John C. Bennett should be repeated, every Elder in the 
Church could truthfully and consistently do just what Elder Taylor did in 
France—he could deny their existence.” 


THAT UTAH VISIT 


After receiving your letter, I requested of my father that 
he give me a written statement in answer to your charge that 
he “discussed” the doctrine -of “polygamy” with you, and re- 
ceived the following: 


58 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


Joseph F. Smith, Jr. 


Dear Son:—You have submitted to me some statements made by Mr. 
R. C. Evans of the Reorganized church, and desire to know what I have to 
say about them. He says: “If your father denies that he and I discussed the 
doctrine of polygamy, all I have to say about it is, that what he states is 
untrue.” Perhaps I could dismiss this statement precisely in the same way he 
has. I could certainly do so far more truthfully. He and I did not discuss 
the doctrine of “polygamy” at all. It is true I did introduce him to 
President Lorenzo Snow, to Aunt Lucy W. Smith, to Aunt Catherine P. 
Smith, to Heber J. Grant and a few otners. Whatever “discussion” he had 
on the “doctrine of polygamy’ may have been with these parties, but not 
with me. While in my company he was my guest by introduction from my 
cousin Joseph Smith, president of the Reorganized church, and I carefully 
avoided any discussion with him upon any and all differences of opinion 
which existed between us, the discussion of which could only have resulted 
in ill feeling and perhaps extreme bitterness. I treated him as any gentleman 
should treat another, mot as an antagonist but as a stranger within my gates, 
indeed, as my guest; and when we parted it was with mutual good feelings 
and interchange of kindly wishes, without the slightest breath or suspicion 
of unpleasantness, which must have existed had we indulged in a 
“discussion of the doctrine of polygamy,’ or any other points of difference. 
Aunt Catherine P. Smith was making us a short visit at the time, and 
I introduced her to Mr. Evans as the wife of my father, Hyrum Smith. 
They had some conversation, in which I took no part, and to the best 
of my recollection he drew out from her the fact that she was married 
to Hyrum Smith, by Joseph Smith the Prophet, in August 1843, in the 
brick office of Hyrum Smith, at Nauvoo, in the presence of her mother, 
Sarah Godshall Phillips, Mrs. Julia Stone and her daughter Hettie. 


Mr: Evans attempted to cross-question her on her statement, but she 
stoutly and unequivocally affirmed the truth of what she had said. Mrs. 
Lizzie Wilcox, your mother and two or three other members of the family 
were present and heard what was said. 


“With reference to Mr. Evans’ alleged interview with Aunt Lucy W. 
Smith at the Theatre, I need only say I occupied a seat adjoining them, and 
heard the conversation between them, and I have not the slightest recol- 
lection of the statement he has made about that interview. The strong 
point which he attempts to make is the fact that Lucy was married to the 
Prophet Joseph Smith, on May 1, 1843, while the revelation on plural 
marriage was dated “July 12, 1843,’ and her consequent embarrassment, 
was far-fetched; for no one knew better than she did that the revelation 
was given as far back as 1834, and was first reduced to writing in 1843. 
And no one could have been better prepared to state that fact than Aunt 
Lucy W. Smith. There could not be, therefore, amy cause for em- 
barrassment on her part on that score, and I apprehend she would have 
been one of the last persons to “sit silent and confused” under such an 
implied impeachment. 


That she bore testimony to the good character of Aunt Emma Smith 
with reference to other matters than plural marriage is true; but not to 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 59 


her conduct toward that principle. Aunt Lucy is still living, and sound 
mentally and physically. She can, and no doubt will, fully clear away any 
sophistry and falsehood of Mr. Evans’ statement of the alleged interview. 

Referring to the interview with President Snow, Mr. Evans says: 
“Lorenzo Snow did testify to me as stated. But then and there, in the 
presence of Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon, I showed his testi- 
mony to be false by his own evidence when given under oath, and _ his 
sister’s statement signed in 1842. At this, Snow, Cannon and Smith were 
much annoyed. So much for your’ father’s statement, which says ‘you 
did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy.’” The fact is, 
President Snow gave Mr. Evans, in my presence and hearing, a plain, 
simple narration of the instructions he received from Joseph Smith in 
regard to the doctrine of plural marriage, including almost word for 
word the statement he had previously made under oath, and testified that 
Joseph informed him that his sister Eliza R. Snow had been sealed to him 
as his wife. This much and more in this line I distinctly heard and as 
distinctly remember, but I did not hear the alleged arraignment of President 
Snow’s testimony by Mr. Evans, nor did I witness or experience any “an- 
noyance” on the part of myself or anyone present because of the said ar- 
raignment. Indeed, I am prepared to affirm that Mr. Evans did not “then 
and there” in my presence and that of Geo. Q. Cannon, nor in the presence 
of any one there, “show his (Snow’s) testimony to be false,” either “by 
his own evidence when given under oath,’ or “by his sister’s statement 
signed in 1842,” or at any other time. 


I am here constrained to say that Mr. Evans was treated by President 
Snow, as also by President George Q. Cannon and myself, in the most 
courteous and respectful manner, and so far as I observed his demeanor 
towards us was reciprocal and gentlemanly—and not one word was said to 
him by anyone nor by him to anyone in my presence that was in any 
degree discourteous, contentious or embarrassing. 


I conclude, therefore, that the foregoing statements made by Mr. Evans, 
were after thoughts uttered by him with a view to misrepresent the truth 
and the facts, on the lines of the bitter and relentless opposition of himself 
and associates to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in general, 
and the doctrine of plural marriage in particular, as revealed, taught and 
practiced by Joseph Smith himself, from whom Brigham Young and many 
others received it. On these matters they are so surcharged with animus 
that they will noz receive, admit, or tell the truth. 


With reference to Mr. Evan’s allusion to my first wife I will simply 
say: She was most intimately acquainted from her childhood with the 
young lady who became my second wife, and it was with their full knowl- 
edge and consent that I entered into plural marriage, my first wife being 
present as a witness when I took my second wife, and freely gave her 
consent thereto. Our associations as a family were pleasant and harmonious. 

It was not until long after the second marriage that my first wife 


was drawn away from us, not on account of domestic troubles, but for 
other causes which I do not care to mention. In eight years of wedded 


life we had no children. She constantly complained of ill health and was 


60 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


as constantly under a doctor’s care. She concluded to go to California 
for her health and before going procured a separation. This all occurred 
previous to 1867. On March 1, 1868 I married Sarah E. Richards, and 
January 1, 1870, I married Edna Lambson, from one to three years after 
my first wife separated from me, and had become a resident of California. 
She subsequently returned to Utah and later went to St. Louis where she 
died. 

Your self-exaltation in classing yourself with Jacob is most 


stupendous, to say the least. He was above accepting idle rumors, 
from such sources as those given by the writer of the article of 
Collier’s which you quote, and which are false. Jacob was no 
aspersor. 

Aunt Catherin Phillips Smith also declares that she did 
testify to you in regard to her marriage and that you questioned 
her quite closely. My mother declares the same for she was 
present at the conversation. Presidents Snow and Cannon are 
not here to speak in their defense, but I am satisfied that they 
would bear witness to the foregoing letter. Aunt Lucy may 
testify for herself. 


TESTIMONY OF LUCY W. SMITH 


The day I received a copy of the Ensign containing your 
discourse from which you give extracts in your “reply,” in re- 
lation to your “conversation” with Aunt Lucy W. Smith, I sent 
her a copy of your remarks with the request that she tell me 
if you had correctly reported her testimony. In the course of a 
few days I received this: 


My Dear Boy: I very much regret not feeling able to answer your 
request at an earlier date. I am, however, much improved in health 
since coming to Logan, and take pleasure in declaring to you that the 
infamous discourse delivered 16th Feb. 1905 (the date of the Ensign) 
at St. Louis, Missouri, by Mr. Evans, is a fabrication of falsehoods and 
misrepresentation. I confess that I was not only surprised, but shocked 
beyond measure. Now one of the presidency of the Reorganized church, 
just think of it! At the time he came to Salt Lake City three years ago, 
he claimed to be one of “young Joseph’s apostles; came with a letter of 
introduction from cousin Joseph to his cousin Joseph F., saying that any 
courtesy shown him would be appreciated. Accordingly, Mr. Evans was 
shown every consideration. He accepted the generous hospitality of our 
President and his model family. Having expressed a desire to meet Mrs. 
Lucy W. Kimball, who was engaged that afternoon, arrangements were 
made to meet at the theatre, as he had to leave next day. He asked me 
many questions which I answered frankly—some very offensive hearsay- 
questions that aroused my indignation, but I bore the ordeal as a martyr 
should. And from this opportunity sprang the wonderful discourse of 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 61 


wicked falsehood and malicious misrepresentation. O, shame! Where canst 
thou hide thy brazen face! How dare he resort to such infamy unless~to 
satiate a morbid desire for notoriety among sensation-mongers, who seek 
not for light or truth! If so he only gratified the cravings of the basest 
and lowest caste. 

I cannot believe that the once highly and beloved Emma who was so 
loyal and true to her husband in all the early trials and hardships to which 
he was subject, when in chains and bondage, when he was dragged from 
his bed, tarred and feathered, imprisoned and mocked and scoffed at, 
ridiculed and abused, and his life threatened by infuriated mobs and she 
stood by him and comforted him in all of his afflictions—I cannot believe 
after enduring all this for his sake, that Emma Smith ever denied seeing 
the revelation on celestial marriage after receiving it in good faith and 
accepting it as a command from God, knowing as I do, that she taught 
it to Eliza and Emily Partridge, Maria and Sarah Lawrence, and urged 
them to accept it by being sealed to her husband. She treated them 
kindly and considerately and knew they were associated with him as his 
wives. She was then a happy woman, until the tempter came in human 
form, and she partook of the apostate spirit so rife in those days. She could 
not deny these facts without sinning against her husband, sinning against 
his wives, against the truth, and against her God! 


If her son insists that this denial was her last testimony he fastens a 
stigma on her once noble character in the estimation of her former friends 
and associates, who were familiar with the facts of the period referred to. 
This misguided son, young and without experience, was surrounded by 
his father’s most wicked enemies who had betrayed his father, and had 
been instrumental in taking his life; and who, after they had accomplished 
this foul act, through sinister policies, determined to destroy the work his 
father was commanded to do, and had laid a permanent foundation on 
which to build up his church—the Church of Christ. They sought to 
influence his son against the teachings of his father, call him forth as a 
“leader” with promises of success, and good backing. Poor boy was 
flattered and lead on and on, by crafty men, until he became an un- 
believer of the principles his father had taught; and I cannot but believe 
that through such influences his mother has been misrepresented. I am 
unwilling to believe otherwise. 


I expressed my regrets to Mr. Evans in relation to the course taken 
by “young Joseph” through the influence of the bitter opponents of his 
father. I said he had closed his eyes to anything that would cast a ray of 
light on the vexed question: “Did my father have more [other] wives 
than my mother?” I answered truthfully without hesitation. Afterwards 
he went to Lehi, called on Melissa Lott, with whom he had been associated 
from early childhood and asked: “Will you answer me one question, I 
come to you knowing you will tell me the truth, were you my father’s 
wife?” “Yes, Joseph, I was,” “Where is your proof?” She stepped to the 
stand and took the family Bible opened to the family record, placed it oa 
his knee and asked: “Do you recognize the handwriting?’ “Certainly 
that is your father’s (Cornelius P. Lott’s) handwriting, know it as well 


62 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


as my own.” ‘Then read the marriage certificate of the Prophet Joseph and 
Melissa Lott. 

Oliver Huntington who is still living testifies that they were very 
intimate as boys, and when together had often talked the matter over. 

Referring to Mr. Evans again. I said: “Does this prove him (Joseph) 
an honest man?” Now does this cover the ground of your inquiry? I 
have so often been interrupted by callers, that I may not have been 
explicit enough. My personal testimony you already have, if not you can 
get it by referring to “Reminisences of Latter-day Saints,’ by L. O. 
Littlefield, which you will find at the President’s (Historian’s) office. 


Does this read much like she had been correctly repre- 
sented? 


BRIGHAM YOUNG UPHELD BY THE LORD 


In reference to the wicked charge you make in your dis- 
course mentioned in Aunt Lucy’s letter, against President Young 
of practicing gross immorality while on his mission in England 
in 1840 and winter of 1841, a sufficient answer will be found in 
the revelation of January 19, 1841, wherein the Lord, by revelation 
through the Prophet Joseph Smith declares: 


I give to you my servant Brigham Young, to be a President over the 
Twelve traveling Council, 

Which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my king- 
dom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word 
to every creature. 


And the revelation of July 9, 1841, given after his return 
from England: 


* * Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Brigham, it 
is no more required at your hand to leave your family as in times past, for 
your offering is acceptable to me. 


In this abusive charge against President Young you are 
striking at Jehovah, and accusing Him, either of condoning such 
a grievous sin, or failing to discover it. Such a charge as that is 
ridiculously absurd. I feel safe in accepting the word of the 
Lord in preference to the ribald, indecent statements of those 
who speak forth the vulgar desires of their own minds. 


Respectfully, 
Joseph F. Smith, Jr. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 63 


THE SAINT’S HERALD ON THE ORIGIN OF 
PLURAL MARRIAGE 


In both replies to Mr. Evans, mention is made of two 
articles in the Saints’ Herald, volume one, that were written by 
Isaac Sheen, the first editor of that paper. These references were 
ignored by Mr. Evans in his publication of a portion of the 
foregoing correspondence. It would occupy too much space to 
copy these articles in full as they are quite lengthy, but I feel 
that the gist of the matter should be presented in more detail than 
it is given in the replies. 

Mr. Sheen’s argument is that the Saints at Nauvoo “set 
up their idols in their heart,” and went to the Prophet Joseph 
Smith and asked him to inquire of the Lord and ascertain from 
Him if it would not be proper for them to practice plural mar- 
riage. This the Prophet Joseph did and in answer the Lord 
gave him the revelation on celestial marriage, granting the 
practice of plural marriage, and then, after giving this revelation 
the Lord smote the Prophet for his “iniquity” in asking for the 
revelation, and poured out wrath and indignation upon the 
Saints for their participation in what he calls “abominations.” 

Reference is also made to the prophecies of Ezekiel, Balaam 
and Micaiah to substantiate his theory which Mr. Sheen admits 
he is unable to “satisfactorily explain.” An extensive quotation 
from the first article follows, which will give an idea of the 
position in which the members of the Reorganized church re- 
gard the Prophet Joseph Smith and the culmination of his most 
glorious mission. 


STATEMENT OF ISAAC SHEEN 


We might call your attention to many prophecies in the Bible which 
these backsliders* have fulfilled by their abominations. Ezekiel appears 
to have had a very clear manifestation of the wickedness of these men 
and the plan pursued by them, by which they embark into polygamy. In 
Ezekiel 14 c. 1, 5, v, the prophet says, “Then came certain elders of 
Israel unto me, saying, Son of man, these men have set up their idols in 


*The Prophet Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the Saints. 


64 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


their heart and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: 
should I be inquired of at all by them? Therefore speak unto them, and 
say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Every man of the house of Israel 
that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his 
iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the Lord, will 
answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols; that I 
may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all 
estranged from me through their idols.” We have shown you that God 
gave a revelation unto us in which he commanded that every man should 
“cleave unto his wife and none else,’ and that he commanded us saying, 
“Repent and remember the Book of Mormon and the former command- 
ments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to 
that which I have written,’ and that in that book there is much testimony 
against polygamy. All these instructions were sufficient for our guidance, 
but “men have set up their idols in their hearts, and put the stumblingblock 
of their iniquity before their faces.’ This adulterous spirit had captivated 
their hearts and they desired a licence from God to lead away captive the 
fair daughters of His people, and in this state of mind they came to the 
Prophet Joseph. Could the Lord do anything more or less than what 
Ezekiel hath prophesied? The Lord hath declared by Ezekiel what kind 
of an answer he would give them, therefore he answered them according 
to the multitude of their idols. Paul had also prophesied that “for this 
cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; 
that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure 
in unrighteousness.’ Both these prophecies agree. In Ezekiel’s prophecy the 
Lord also says, “I will set my face against that man, and will make him 
a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; 
and ye shall know that I am the Lord. And if the prophet be deceived 
when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet,* 
and I will stretch out my hand upon him and I will destroy him from the 
midst of my people Israel. And they shall bear the punishment of their 
iniquity; the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of 
him that seeketh unto him; that the house of Israel may go no more astray 
from me, neither be polluted any more with all their transgression; but 
that they may be my people, and I may be their God, saith the Lord 
God,” 8c., 11 v. We have here the facts as they have transpired and as 
they will continue to transpire in relation to this subject. The death of 
the prophet is one fact that has been realized although he abhorred and 
repented of this iniquity before his death. This branch of the subject we 
shall leave to some of our brethren, who are qualified to explain it 
satisfactorily. Those who have practiced these abominations have become 
“a sign and a proverb’ among men in accordance with this prophecy. 
These are the “false teachers’ prophesied of by Peter, of whom he said 
“many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way 
of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they 
with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgment now 


*The inspired translation reads: “I the Lord have mot deceived that 
prophet.” 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 65 


of a long time lingereth not, and their abomination slumbereth not.” The 
reason why the Lord destroyed the prophet and made those who “set up 
their idols in their heart,’ a sign and a proverb, made them bear the 
punishment of their iniquity is worthy of our earnest attention. We 
are informed that the reason why the Lord would perform all these 
things was this, “that the house of Israel may go no more astray from 
me, neither be polluted any more with all their transgressions; but that they 
may be my people, and I may be their God,’ Here is positive evidence 
that this prophecy was to be fulfilled in the last days, for there. has only 
been a small part of the house of Israel (at any time since this. prophecy 
was given) that were obedient to the Lord. The time is not. fully come 
when Israel shall “go no more astray,” and not “be polluted any more 
with all their transgressions,’ therefore the punishment of these men who 
have committed these sins must continue until that happy day shall come. 
But as the Lord says in this prophecy, “repent and turn yourselves from 
your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations, so say 
we, and return unto the fold from whence you have strayed.” As some may 
yet doubt whether God would act in this way toward men who set up their 
idols in their heart, we will see how God dealt with Balaam. In Numbers 
22 c. we are informed that Balak, king of the Moabites, sent the elders of 
Moab and Midian unto Balaam with the rewards of divination in their hands 
to entreat him that he would curse Israel, but God said unto Balaam, 
“Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people, for they are 
blessed.” And Balaam rose up in the morning, and said unto the Princes 
of Balak, “Get you unto your land; for the Lord refuseth to give me leave 
to go with you.” And Balak sent yet again princes, more, and more honor- 
able than they. And they came to Balaam and said to him, “Thus sayeth 
Balak, the son of Zippor, let nothing, I pray thee, hinder thee from coming 
unto me: For I will promote thee unto very great honor, and I will do 
whatsoever thou sayest unto me; come, therefore, I pray thee, curse me 
this people.” Now although the Lord had said unto Balaam, “Thou shalt 
not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people, for they are blessed,” 
yet the great honor that was offered him, allured him, and he inquired of 
the Lord again, and said unto the princes, “Tarry ye also here this night, 
that I may know what the Lord will say unto me more.” And God came 
unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, “If the men come to call thee, 
rise up and go with them: but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that 
shalt thou do.” And Balaam rose up in the morning and saddled his ass, 
and went with the princes of Moab. And God’s anger was kindled because 
he went; and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary 
against him. So we find that the Lord told him not to go, but afterwards, 
having “set up his idol in his heart” he inquired of the Lord again 
whether he might not go and curse Israel and God’s anger was kindled 
against him because he did so, although God had commanded him to go. 
This is, therefore, a parallel case with Ezekiel’s prophecy.* 

In I Kings, 22 c., we are informed that the King of Israel wanted 


*Mr. Sheen forgets that the Lord said, “Thou shalt mot curse the 
people, for they are blessed.” which command Balaam hearkened to, 


66 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, to go up with him to Ramoth-Gilead to 
battle, and there were four hundred prophets who said “Go up, for the 
Lord shall deliver it into the hands of the king.” And Jehoshaphat said, 
“Ts there not here a prophet of the Lord besides, that we might inquire of 
him?” And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one, 
Micaiah, the son of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the Lord; but I 
hate him, for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.” And 
Jehoshaphat said, “Let not the king say so.” So he was sent for. The 
messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, “Behold 
now the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one 
mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and 
speak that which is good.” And Micaiah said, “As the Lord liveth, what 
the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak.” We are then informed that 
Micaiah prophesied like the false prophets,* and then against them. 
And he said, “I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the hosts 
of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And 
the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab that he may go up and fall at 
Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that 
manner. And there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord and 
said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him wherewith? And 
he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his 
prophets. And he said, thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth 
and do so. Now therefore behold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the 
mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concern- 
ing thee.’ This doctrine was extensively preached in the Church before 
iniquity overthrew the Church, and by this doctrine the Church might 
have been saved, if men had not “set up their idols in their heart.” 


*The prophecy was: ‘Go and prosper; for the Lord shall deliver it 
into the hands of the king,” v. 15. This was uttered in mockery, if not 
why did the king reply: “How many times shall I adjure thee that thou 
tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord,” y. 16. 
Then Micaiah told the king that he should fall at Ramoth-Gilead, so the 
king acted with full knowledge of the word of the Lord concerning his 
death when he went forth to battle. Therefore the Lord did not deceive 
Ahab in this matter. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 67 


’ 


INTRODUCTION OF CELESTIAL AND PLURAL 
MARRIAGE 


Additional testimony of a few out of the multitude* of 
witnesses who were taught these principles by the Prophet 
Joseph Smith, and who knew that he received the revelation 
known as section 132 in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. 


AFFIDAVIT OF PRESIDENT LORENZO SNOW 


In the month of April, 1843, I returned from my Euro- 
pean mission. A few days after my arrival at Nauvoo, when 
at President Joseph Smith’s house, he said he wished to have 
some private talk with me, and requested me to walk out with 
him. It was toward evening. We walked a little distance and 
sat down on a large log that lay near the bank of the river. 
He there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality 
of wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and 
commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives; that 
he foresaw the trouble that would follow, and sought to turn 
away from the commandment; that an angel from heaven then 
appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with 
destruction unless he went forward and easy the commandment. 

He further said that my sister Eliza R. Snow had been 
sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity. He told me 


*One hundred or more affidavits in relation to the introduction of ce- 
lestial and plural marriage are on file in the Historian’s Office, Salt Lake 
City, and are the expressions of eye and ear witnesses, who know that the 
Prophet Joseph Smith introduced and taught celestial and plural marriage. 
Most of these witnesses are members of the Church, but some of them 
are not, and have not been connected with the Church from before the 
martyrdom of the Prophet and Patriarch. It would be impracticable and 
even unnecessary to produce all this evidence here. A portion should suf- 
fice, in order that the truth regarding the introduction of these principles 
should be established; for, in this case as in all others, the testimony of 
two or three reliable witnesses should establish the truth of these things. 
Celestial marriage, which is marriage for eternity, should not be confused 
with plurality of wives, as is often done by those not acquainted with these 
teachings. 


68 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


that the Lord would open the way, and I should have women 
sealed to me as wives. This conversation was prolonged, I 
think one hour or more, in which he told me many important 
things. 

I solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I 
hope to come forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the 
above statement is true. 

Lorenzo Snow. 
Territory of Utah, ee 

Box Elder County. § 

Personally came before me J. C. Wright, Clerk of the 
County and Probate Courts in and for the County and Terri- 
tory aforesaid, Lorenzo Snow, and who being duly sworn de- 
poseth and says that the foregoing statement by him subscribed 
is true of his own certain knowledge. 

Witness my hand and seal of Court, at my office in Brigham 
City, Box Elder County, Utah Territory, this 28th day of August, 


A. D. 1869. 
[ Seal. ] J. C. Wright, Clerk. 


AFFIDAVIT OF LUCY WALKER 


United States of America, 

State of Utah. 

County of Salt Lake. 

Lucy Walker Smith Kimball, being first duly sworn, says: 

I was a plural wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and was 
married for time and eternity in Nauvoo, State of Illinois, on 
the first day of May, 1843, by Elder William Clayton. ‘The 
Prophet was then living with his first wife, Emma Smith, and 
I know that she gave her consent to the marriage of at least 
four women to her husband as plural wives, and she was well 
aware that he associated and cohabited with them as wives. 
The names of these women are Eliza and Emily Partridge, 
and Maria and Sarah Lawrence, all of whom knew that I too 
was his wife. 

When the Prophet Joseph Smith mentioned the principle 
of plural marriage to me I felt indignant, and so expressed my- 
self to him, because my feelings and education were averse to 
anything of that nature. But he assured me that this doc- 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 69 


trine had been revealed to him of the Lord, and that I was en- 
titled to receive a testimony of its divine origin for myself. 
He counseled me to pray to the Lord, which I did, and there- 
upon received from Him a powerful and irresistible testimony 
of the truthfulness and divinity of plural marriage, which tes- 
timony has abided with me ever since. 

On the 8th day of February, 1845, I was married for tzme 
to President Heber C. Kimball, and bore to him nine children. 
And in this connection allow me to say to his everlasting credit 
that during the whole of my married life with him he never 
failed to regard me as the wife for eternity of his devoted friend, 
the Prophet Joseph Smith. 

Lucy Walker Smith Kimball. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 17th day of De- 
cember, 1902. 


[Seal.] James Jack, Notary Public. 
AFFIDAVIT OF CATHERINE PHILLIPS SMITH 
United States of America, 7] 
State of Utah. 
County of Salt Lake. 


Catherine Phillips Smith,* being first sworn, says: 


I am the daughter of Thomas Denner and Sarah Godshall 
Phillips, and was born in Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, 


*Some time during the month of September four members of the 
Reorganized Church called on Catherine Phillips Smith at her home in 
East Jordan, with the object in view of having her deny her testimony 
regarding her marriage to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, which she reso- 
lutely refused to do. . 

In a statement given on September 24th, two days before her death, 
she said: “They tried to get me to tell a lie and deny that I was mar- 
ried to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith; but I would not do it. I never have 
lied and will not now; my affidavit is true. They asked me if my mother 
knew of my marriage, and I told them that the Patriarch first asked my 
mother if she was willing for him to marry her daughter, and she said 
he could ask the daughter, and she could do as she pleased. I told them 
that the Prophet Joseph sealed me to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith as his 
wife for time and all eternity, and they tried to get me to deny it, and 
I would not do it, for it is true. I told them the truth. They annoyed 
me very much, and I finally told them to leave my house and never 
enter it again.” 


70 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


on the first day of August, 1819. My present residence is East 
Jordan, Salt Lake County, Utah. 

I was married to Hyrum Smith, brother of the Prophet 
Joseph Smith, as his plural wife, and lived with him as his 
wife. The sealing was performed by the Prophet Joseph Smith 
himself, in Nauvoo, State of Illinois, in August, 1843, in the 
brick office belonging to my husband, and occupied at the time 
as a dwelling by Brother and Sister Robert and Julia Stone, and 
was witnessed by my mother, Sjster Stone and her daughter 
Hettie. 

In consequence of the strong feeling manifested at the time 
against plural marriage and those suspected of having entered 
into it, I, with my mother; moved to St. Louis near the close of 
the year, where I was living when the Prophet Joseph and my 
husband were martyred. 

The purpose of this affidavit is that my testimony to the 
truthfulness and divinity of plural marriage may live after I 
shall have passed away; and in this spirit I commend it to all 
to whom it may come. 

Catherine Phillips Smith. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 28th day of Jan- 
uary, 1903. 

[ Seal | L. John Nuttall, Notary Public. 


AFFIDAVIT OF ALMIRA W. JOHNSON SMITH BARTON 
Territory of Utah ss 


County of Iron. 

Be it remembered on this first day of August A. D. 1883, 
personally appeared before me John W. Brown a notary public 
in and for said county, Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton, who 
was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath says: 
I am a citizen in the Territory of Utah, over the age of twenty- 
one years, and I am the daughter of Ezekiel Johnson and Julia 
Hills Johnson his wife; that I was born at Westford, in the 
State of Vermont on the 22nd day of October A. D. 1813; that I 
had nine brothers who were named respectfully Joel H., Seth, 
David, Benjamin F., Joseph E., Elmer, George W., William D., 
and Amos; and six sisters named respectfully Nancy, Dulcena, 
Julia, Susan, Mary and Esther, all of whom, with myself, were 
baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE fas 


with the exception of Elmer, who died in infancy. 


Deponent further says, that in the years 1842 and 1843, I 
resided most of the time at Macedonia, in the County of Han- 
cock, State of Illinois, sometimes with my sister who was the 
wife of Almon W. Babbitt, and sometimes with my brother 
Benjamin- F. Johnson. During that time the Prophet Joseph 
Smith taught me the principle of celestial marriage including 
plurality of wives and asked me to become his wife. He first 
spoke to me on this subject at the house of my brother Benjamin 
F. I also lived a portion of the time at Brother Joseph Smith’s 
in Nauvoo, when many conversations passed between him and 
myself on this subject. On a certain occasion in the spring of the 
year 1843, the exact date of which I do not now recollect, I 
went from Macedonia to Nauvoo to visit another of my sisters, 
the one who was the widow of Lyman R. Sherman, deceased, at 
which time I was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. At the 
time this took place Hyrum Smith, Joseph’s brother, came to 
me and said I need not be afraid. I had been fearing and 
doubting about the principle and so had he, but he now knew it 
was true. After this time I lived with the Prophet Joseph as his 
wife, and he visited me at the home.of my brother Benjamin F. 
at Macedonia. 

Deponent further says that I had many conversations with 
Eliza Beaman who was also a wife of Joseph Smith, and who 
was present when I was sealed to him, on the subject of plurality 
of wives, both before and after the performance of that cere- 
mony. And also that since the death of the Prophet Joseph 
Smith I was married for time to Reuben Barton of Nauvoo, 
Hancock Co., Ill., by whom I have had five daughters, one 
only of whom is now living. 


Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton. 
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Almira W. Johnson 


Smith Barton the day and year first above written. 
[ Seal.] John W. Brown, Notary Public. 


72 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


AFFIDAVIT OF MARTHA McBRIDE KIMBALL 


Territory of Utah ai 
County of Millard. 


Be it remembered that on this eighth day of July, A. D. 
1869, personally appeared before me Edward Partridge, Probate 
Judge in and for said county, Martha McBride Kimball, who 
was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith 
that sometime in the summer of the year 1842, at the city of 
Nauvoo, county of Hancock, state of Illinois, she was married or 
sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints, by Heber C. Kimball, one of the Twelve 
Apostles in said Church, ‘according to the laws of the same 
regulating marriage. 


Martha McBride Kimball. 


Subscribed and sworn to by said Martha McBride Kimball 
the day and year first above written. 


[ Seal. ] Edward Partridge, Probate Judge. 


AFFIDAVIT OF MELISSA LOTT WILLES 


Territory of Utah 
County of Salt Lake. 


Be it remembered that on this twentieth day of May, A. D. 
1869, personally appeard before me, James Jack a notary public 
in and for said county, Melissa Lott Willes, who was by me 
sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that on the 
twentieth day of September, A. D. 1843, at the city of Nauvoo, 
county of Hancock, state of Illinois, she was marriage or sealed to 
Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 
day Saints, by Hyrum Smith, Presiding Patriarch of said Church, 
according to laws of the same, regulating marriage, in the presence 
of Cornelius P. Lott and Parmelia Lott. 

Melissa Lott Willes. 


Subscribed and sworn to by the said Melissa Lott Willes, 
the day and year first above written. 


[ Seal. ] James Jack, Notary Public. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 73 
LOVINA SMITH WALKER’S TESTIMONY 


I, Lovina Walker, hereby certify that while I was living 
with Aunt Emma Smith, in Fulton City, Fulton Co., Illinois, in 
the year 1846, that she told me that she, Emma Smith, was 
present and witnessed the marrying or sealing of Eliza Partridge, 
Emily Partridge, Maria Lawrence and Sarah Lawrence to her 
husband, Joseph Smith, and that she gave her consent thereto. 


Lovina Walker. 


_ We hereby witness that Lovina Walker made and signed 
the above statement on this 16th day of June, A. D. 1869, at 
Salt Lake City, S. L. County, Utah Territory, of her own free 
will and record. 

Hyrum S. Walker, 
Sarah E. Smith, 
Joseph F. Smith- 


AFFIDAVIT OF SARAH A. KIMBALL 


Territory of Utah < 

County of Salt Lake. § ~~ 

Be it remembered that on this nineteenth day of June, 
A. D. 1869, personally appeared before me Elias Smith, Probate 
Judge for said county, Sarah Ann Kimball, who was by me 
sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that on the 
twenty-seventh day of July, A. D. 1842, at the city of Nauvoo, 
county of Hancock, state of Illinois, she was married or sealed 
to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints, by Newell K. Whitney, Presiding Bishop of 
said Church, according to the laws of the same regulating mar- 
riage, in the presence of Elizabeth Ann Whitney her mother. 


Sarah A. Kimball. 


Subscribed and sworn to by the said Sarah Ann (Whitney) 
Kimball, the day and year first above written. 


E. Smith, Probate Judge. 


74 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 
AFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH A. WHITNEY 


Territory of Utah 

County of Salt Lake. § 

Be it remembered that on this thirtieth day of August, A. 
D. 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary 
public in and for said county, Elizabeth Ann Whitney, who was 
by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that 
on the twenty-seventh day of July, A. D. 1842, at the city of 
Nauvoo, county of Hancock, state of Illinois, she was present 
and witnessed the marrying or sealing of her daughter Sarah Ann 
Whitney to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for time and all eternity, 
by her husband Newel K: Whitney then Presiding Bishop of 
the Church. 


SS. 


E. A. Whitney. 
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Elizabeth Ann Whit- 
ney the day and year first above written. 


James Jack, Notary Public. 
AFFIDAVIT OF ORSON HYDE 


Springtown, Sept. 15, 1869. 
I, Orson Hyde, do hereby certify and declare according to 
my best recollection that on the fourth day of September I 
was married to Miss Marinda N. Johnson, in Kirtland, Ohio, in 
the year of our Lord 1834, and in the month of February or 
March, 1843, I was married to Miss Martha R. Browitt, by Joseph 
Smith, the martyred prophet, and by him she was sealed to me 
for time and for all eternity in Nauvoo, Ill., and in the month 
of April of the same year, 1843, I was married by the same 
person to Mrs. Mary Ann Price, and by him she was sealed to 
me for time and for all eternity, in Nauvoo, Ill., while the 
woman to whom I was first married was yet living, and gave 
her cordial consent to both transactions, and was personally present 
to witness the ceremonies. 


Orson Hyde. 


Sworn to and subscribed to before me this the 15th day of 
September, 1869, at Springtown, Sanpete County, U. T. 
George Brough, Justice of the Peace. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 75 


I hereby certify that the above named George Brough is 
a justice of the peace for the precinct of Springtown in the county 
of Sanpete, U. T., and that he is duly qualified in accordance 
with law; in testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand and 
official seal of the County Court of Sanpete County, at my office, 
Manti City, this Sept. 16, 1869. 


[ Seal. } William T. Reed, County Clerk. 
AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH BATES NOBLE 
Territory of Utah 
County of Salt Lake. 


Be it remembered that on the 26th day of June, A. D. 1869, 
personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in 
and for said county, Joseph Bates Noble, who was by me sworn 
in due form of law, and upon his oath saith, that on the fifth 
day of April, A. D. 1841, at the city of Nauvoo, County of 
Hancock, State of Illinois, he married or sealed Louisa Beaman 
to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints, according to the order of celestial marriage re- 
vealed to the said Joseph Smith. 

Joseph B. Noble. 

Subscribed and sworn to by the said Joseph Bates Noble, 
the day and year first above written. 


[ Seal. ] James Jack, Notary Public. 
AFFIDAVIT OF RHODA RICHARDS SMITH 


Territory of Utah 
County of Salt Lake. 


Be it remembered that on this first day of May, A. D. 
1869, personally appeared before me, Elias Smith, Probate Judge 
for said county, Rhoda Richards, who was by me sworn in due 
form of law and upon her oath saith that on the twelfth day 
of June A. D. 1843, at the city of Nauvoo, County of Han- 
cock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, 
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by 
Willard Richards, one of the Twelve Apostles of said Church, 
according to the laws of the same regulating marriage. 


Rhoda Richards. 


76 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


Subscribed and sworn to by the said Rhoda Richards, the 
day and year above written. 
[ Seal. ] Elias Smith, Probate Judge. 


TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN F. JOHNSON 


Mesa City, Arizona, 9th March, 1904. 
President Joseph F. Smith, 
Washington City, D. C. 


My Dear Brother:— 


In reading reports from the Senate Committee on the Reed 
Smoot case, I see that witnesses are subpoenaed to prove that 
the Prophet Joseph Smith did not authorize or practice polyg- 
amy; and I do know that he did teach plural marriage, and that 
he did give to me a plural wife who is still living with me, and 
that I saw one of my sisters married to him. * * * * 

And I do know that at his Mansion House was living 
Mariah and Sarah Lawrence and one of Cornelius P. Lott’s 
daughters as his plural wives with the full knowledge of his 
wife, Emma, of the married relations to him. 

At that time I was his legal business agent at Macedonia 
or Ramus, and ‘was familiar with his family or domestic af- 
fairs; and occupying, as I did, the family mansion often in a 
business way with Emma, the Prophet’s first wife, who at no 
time did ever in my hearing deny the plural character of her 
husband’s family. 

And now with this and much more knowledge relating to 
this subject, could my evidence before the Senate Committee be 
of any real value to the cause of truth? If so, although too 
infirm to travel alone_I would willingly try to be there, if 
according to your council and wish.. 

Loyal to the truth, I am, 

Always brother, 
B. F. Johnson. 


THE CELESTIAL AND PLURAL MARRIAGE REVELATION 


The following letter was written by Elder William Clay- 
ton who wrote the revelation known as section 132 in the Book 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 77 


of Doctrine and Covenants, at the dictation of the Prophet 
Joseph Smith, July 12, 1843.* 

f Salt Lake City, Nov. 11, 1871. 
Madison M. Scott, Esq. 


Dear Sir: F 

Your letter of 23rd of June last, was received by due course of mail, 
but owing to my being so very closely confined with public duties, which 
has almost destroyed my health, I have not answered your letter so 
"promptly as is my practice. My health is yet very poor, but I have re- 
signed the office which was bearing so heavy upon me, and am in hopes 
to regain my usual sound health. 

Now, in regard to the subject matter of your letter, it appears to me 
that the principle topic is what is commonly called polygamy, but which 
I prefer to call celestial marriage. As to young Joseph saying that the 
Church here have apostatized; that we have introduced polygamy, deny- 
ing bitterly that his father ever had a revelation on the subject, that is 
all mere bosh! J believe he knows better, and I have often felt sorry 
to learn that the sons of the Prophet should spend their time in contend- 
ing against a pure and holy principle which their father’s blood was shed 
to establish. They will have a heavy atonement to make when they meet 
their father in the next world. ‘They are in the hands of God, and my 
tespect for their father will not permit me to say much about the wicked 
course of his sons. 

Now, I say to you, as I am ready to testify to all the world, and on 
which testimony I am most willing to meet all the Latter-day Saints and all 
apostates, in time and through all eternity, I did write the revelation on 
celestial marriage given through the Prophet Joseph Smith, on the 12th of 
July, 1843. 

When the revelation was written there was no one present except the 
Prophet Joseph, his brother Hyrum and myself. It was written in the 
small office upstairs in the rear of the brick store which stood on the 
banks of the Mississippi river. It took some three hours to write it. 
Joseph dictated sentence by sentence, and I wrote it as he dictated. After 
the whole was written Joseph requested me to read it slowly and care- 
fully, which I did, and he then pronounced it correct. The same night 
a copy was taken by Bishop Whitney, which copy is now here (in the 
Historian’s office) and which I know and testify is correct. The original 
was destroyed by Emma Smith. 

I again testify that the revelation on polygamy was given through the 
prophet Joseph on the 12th July, 1843; and that the Prophet Joseph both 
taught and practiced polygamy I do positively know, and bear testimony 
to the fact. In April, 1843, he sealed to me my second wife, my first 
wife being then living. By my said second wife I had two sons born 
in Nauvoo. The first died; the second is here now, and is married. 


*This, however, was not the time this principle was first made known 
to. the Prophet Joseph Smith, for as early as 1831 the Lord revealed the 
principle of celestial and plural marriage to him and he taught it to others. 


78 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


I had the honor to seal one woman * to Joseph under his direction. | I 
could name ten or a dozen of his wives who are living now in this terri- 
tory, so that for any man to tell me that Joseph did not teach polygamy, 
he is losing his time, for I know better. It is not hearsay, nor opinion 
with me, for I positively know of what I speak, and I testify to the truth, 
and shall be willing to meet all opponents on the subject through all 
eternity. 

As to the Church here having apostatized that is all a mere matter 
of assertion, destitute of truth. President Young and his associates are, and 
have been doing everything they can to carry out the plans and instruc- 
tions of the Prophet Joseph, and so eternity will prove to the condemna- 
tion and confusion of all their enemies. Any one who says to the con- 
trary does not know Joseph nor the mission the Lord gave him to fulfill. * * * 

Truly yours, 
William Clayton. 


AFFIDAVIT OF HOWARD CORAY 


Territory of Utah Ze 

County of Salt Lake. { ~~ 

As many false statements have been made in relation to 
the authorship of the revelation on celestial marriage, I deem 
it but justice to all lovers of truth for me to express what I 
know concerning this very important matter. 

On the 22nd day of July, A. D. 1843, Hyrum Smith, the 
martyred Patriarch, came in a carriage to my house in Nauvoo; 
he invited me and my wife to take a ride with him; accordingly, 
as soon as we could make ourselves ready, we got into his car- 
riage and he set off in the direction of Carthage. Having gone 
a short distance, he observed to us that his brother Joseph Smith, 
the Prophet, had received a revelation on marriage, that was 
not for the public yet, which he would rehearse to us, as he 
had taken pains to commit it to memory. He then commenced 
rehearsing the revelation on celestial marriage not stopping till 
he had gone quite through with the matter. After which he 
reviewed that part pertaining to plurality of wives, dwelling at 
some length upon the same, in order that we might clearly 
understand the principle. And on the same day (July 22, 1843,) 
he sealed my wife, formerly Martha Jane Knowlton, to me; and 
when I heard the revelation on celestial marriage read on the 


*See affidavit of Lucy Walker Smith. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 79 


stand in Salt Lake City, in 1852, I recognized it as the same as 
that repeated to me by Brother Hyrum Smith. Not long after 
this I was present when Brother David Fullmer and wife were 
sealed by Brother Hyrum Smith, the martyred Patriarch, accord- 
ing to the law of celestial marriage. And, besides the foregoing, 
there was quite enough came within the compass of my observa- 
tion to have fully satisfied my mind that plural marriage was 
practiced in the city of Nauvoo. 
Howard Coray. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 18th day of June, 
A. D. 1882. 

[ Seal. } James Jack, Notary Public. 


AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID FULLMER* 


Territory of Utah ~ 

County of Salt Lake. | ~~ 

Be it remembered that on this fifteenth day of June, A. D. 
1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public 
in and for said county, David Fullmer, who was by me sworn 
in due form of law, and upon his oath saith, that on or about 
the 12th day of August, A. D. 1843, while in meeting with the 
High Council [he being a member thereof] in Hyrum Smith’s 
brick office, in the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State 
of Illinois, Dunbar Wilson made inquiry in relation to the sub- 
ject of plurality of wives, as there were rumors about respecting 
it, and he was satisfied there was something in those rumors, 
and he wanted to know what it was. Upon which Hyrum 
Smith stepped across the road to his residence, and soon re- 
turned bringing with him a copy of the revelation on celestial 
marriage given to Joseph Smith July 12, 1843, and read the 
same to the High Council, and bore testimony to its truth. 
The said David Fullmer further saith that, to the best of his 
memory and belief, the following named persons were present: 
William Marks, Austin A. Cowles, Samuel Bent, George W. 
Harris, Dunbar Wilson, William Huntington, Levi Jackman, 


*Similar affidavits by most of the members of this High Council at 
Nauvoo are also on file. 


80 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


Aaron Johnson, Thomas Grover, David Fullmer, Phineas Rich- 
ards, James Allred and Leonard Soby. And the said David 
Fullmer further saith that William Marks, Austin A. Cowles 
and Leonard Soby were the only persons present who did not 
receive the testimony of Hyrum Smith, and that all the others 
did receive it from the teaching and testimony of the said Hyrum 
Smith; and further, that the copy of said revelation on celes- 
tial marriage published in the Deseret News extra of Septem- 
ber 14, A. D. 1852, is a true copy of the same. 

David Fullmer. 


Subscribed and sworn to by the said David Fullmer the 
day and year first above written. 
[ Seal. ] James Jack, Notary Public. 


AFFIDAVIT OF LEONARD SOBY* 


Be it remembered that on the 23rd day of March, in the 
year 1886, before, Joshua W. Roberts, notary public for the 
City of Beverley, County of Burlington, State of New Jersey, 
Leonard Soby, of said city, county and state, was by me duly 
sworn, and upon his oath saith: 

That on or about the 12th day of August, 1843, I was a 
resident of Nauvoo, Hancock County, State of Illinois, and 
being a member of the High Council of the Church of Jesus 
Christ of Latter-day Saints, was present at a meeting of said 
council at the time herein above stated; Thomas Grover, Alpheus 
Cutler, David Fullmer, William Huntington and others; when 
Elder Hyrum Smith, after certain explanations, read the revela- 
tion on celestial marriage. 

I have read and examined carefully said revelation, since 
published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of said Church, 
and say to the best of my knowledge and belief it is the same, 
word for word, as the revelation then read by Hyrum Smith. 

The deponent says further, that the revelation did not orig- 
inate with Brigham Young, as some persons have falsely stated, 
but was received by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and read in 


*Leonard Soby was at first opposed to this revelation, and shortly 
after the martyrdom he left the Church. When this statement was given 
he was not a member of the Church. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 81 


the High Council by his authority as a revelation to the Church 
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 


When read to this deponent and said High Council, I be- 
lieved it was a revelation from Jesus Christ, and I believe so now. 


Leonard Soby. 
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Leonard Soby the day 
and year first above written. 
Joshua W. Roberts, Notary Public. 
Witnessed by: 
James H. Hart, 
Samuel Harrison. 


AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. RIGDON 


State of Utah me 
County of Salt Lake. § ~ 


John W. Rigdon, being duly sworn, says: I am the son of 
Sidney Rigdon, deceased. Was born at Mentor, in the State 
of Ohio, in the year 1830, and am now over seventy-five years 
of age. My father, Sidney Rigdon, joined the Church of Jesus 
Christ of Latter-day Saints that year, and was in 1833 ordained 
to be Joseph Smith’s first counselor which position he held up 
to the time Joseph the Prophet was killed, at Carthage jail, 
in 1844. That Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon moved from 
Kirtland, with their families, to the State of Missouri, during the 
winter of 1837, but Rigdon did not reach Far West, in the State 
of Missouri, until the last of April, 1838. That during the 
troubles in Missouri, in the year 1838, Joseph Smith, Hyrum 
Smith, his brother, Sidney Rigdon, Lyman Wight and others, 
whose names I do not now remember, were arrested and im- 
prisoned in Liberty jail, about forty miles from the village of 
Far West, in Caldwell county, Missouri, where they all remained 
incarcerated for several months. That while said Joseph Smith, 
Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Lyman Wight and others were 
prisoners in said Liberty jail, as aforesaid, I, with my mother, 
wife of Sidney Rigdon, Emma Smith, wife of said Joseph Smith, 
and Joseph Smith, son of Joseph and Emma Smith, went to see 
the said prisoners during the latter part of the winter of 1838. 
We all went together in the same carriage and came home to- 


82 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


gether. We stayed at Liberty jail with the prisoners three days 
and then left for home. The story that is being told by some 
of the members of the Reorganized Church, at Lamoni, that 
young Joseph Smith, now president of the said Reorganized 
Church, was ordained by his father, Joseph Smith, to be the 
leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after 
his father’s death, is not true, for I know that no such ordina- 
tion took place while we were at Liberty jail; that if any such 
ordination had taken place I most certainly should have known 
it and remembered it, as I was with young Joseph, the Prophet’s 
son, all the time we were there. If Joseph Smith had ordained 
his son Josph to be the leader of the Church at his death, he 
would have done so in a manner that there could have been 
no doubt about it. Both of his counselors were then in prison 
with him, namely, Sidney Rigdon and Hyrum Smith, and it 
would have been in order for the prophet to have called upon 
them to assist him in such an ordination had it taken place, 
and a record of the same made in the Church books, so that 
all members of the Church might have known that such an 
ordination had taken place. But nothing of the kind appears 
in the Church books. My father and mother lived a good many 
years after the incarceration at Liberty jail, and I, who lived 
near my father, never heard my father or my mother mention 
that such an ordination ever took place in Liberty jail; and as I 
know myself that no such ordination took place in Liberty jail, 
and inasmuch as it is not claimed that an ordination of this 
character was bestowed at any other place, therefore I deny it 
as an untruth and a story gotten up by the Rorganized Church 
for effect. 

Besides all this, if Joseph Smith, the President of the Re- 
reoganized Church was ordained while in Liberty jail, why did 
he, sixteen years after his father’s death, receive an ordination 
under the hands of William Marks, William W. Blair, and 
Zenas H. Gurley? Would it not seem that one ordination 
(and that too, said to have been by his own father, the Presi- 
dent of the Church) should have been sufficient? But further, 
Wm. Marks, Wm. W. Blair and Zenas H. Gurley had all been 
excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints (excepting William W. Blair, who never belonged to it) 
before they “ordained” young Joseph to be President of the 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 83 


Reorganized Church, and therefore they did not have the 
authority to ordain him. The whole story of his being ordained 
by anyone having authority to do so is too preposterous to be 
entertained for a single moment, and should be rejected by all 
who hear such a story mentioned. 

As to the truth of the doctrine of polygamy being intro- 
duced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, deponent further says: 
Joseph Smith was absolute so far as spiritual matters were con- 
cerned, and no man would have dared to introduce the doctrine 
of polygamy or any other new doctrine into the “Mormon” 
Church at the city of Nauvoo during the years 1843 and 1844, 
or at any other place or time, without first obtaining Joseph 
Smith’s consent. If anyone had dared to have done such a thing 
he would have been brought before the High Council and tried, 
and if proven against him, he would have been excommunicated 
from the Church, and that would have ended polygamy forever, 
and would also have ended the man who had dared to introduce 
such a doctrine without the consent of the Prophet Joseph. 

And deponent further says: Joseph the Prophet, at the 
City of Nauvoo, Illinois, some time in the latter part of the 
year 1843, or the first part of the year 1844, made a proposition 
to my sister, Nancy Rigdon, to become his wife. It happened 
in this way: Nancy had gone to Church, meeting being held 
in a grove near the temple lot on which the “Mormons” were 
then erecting a temple, an old lady friend who lived alone in- 
vited her to go home with her, which Nancy did. When they 
got to the house and had taken their bonnets off, the old 
lady began to talk to her about the new doctrine of polygamy 
which was then being taught, telling Nancy, during the con- 
versation, that it was a surprise to her when she first heard it, 
but that she had since come to believe it to be true. While they 
were talking Joseph Smith the Prophet came into the house, 
and joined them, and the old lady immediately left the room. 
It was then that Joseph made the proposal of marriage to my 
sister. Nancy flatly refused him, saying if she ever got married 
she would marry a single man or none at all, and thereupon 
took her bonnet and went home, leaving Joseph at the old lady’s 
house. Nancy told father and mother of it. The story got out 
and it became the talk of the town that Joseph had made a propo- 
sition to Nancy Rigdon to become his wife, and that she re- 


84 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


fused him. A few days after the occurrence Joseph Smith 
came to my father’s house and talked the matter over with 
the family, my sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson also being present, 
who is now alive. The feelings manifested by our family on 
this occasion were anything but brotherly or sisterly, more es- 
pecially on the part of Nancy, as she felt that she had been 
insulted. A day or two later Joseph Smith returned to my father’s 
house, when matters were satisfactorily adjusted between them, 
and there the matter ended. After that Joseph Smith sent my 
father to Pittsburg, Pa., to take charge of a little church that was 
there, and Ebenezer Robinson, who was then the Church printer, 
or at least had been such, as he was the printer of the paper 
in Kirtland, Ohio, and a printer by trade, was to go with him 
to print a paper there, and nine days before Joseph Smith was 
shot at Carthage we started, reaching Pittsburg the day before 
he was killed. 


Deponent further says: I have in my possession a paper 
called the Nauvoo Expositor, bearing date, Nauvoo, Illinois, 
Friday, June 7th, 1844, which said paper’s printing plant was 
destroyed by the City Council at Nauvoo a night or two after 
this issue. ‘ There never was but one issue of this paper. Joseph 
Smith the Prophet was then Mayor of the City of Nauvoo. 
In the afternoon of the day on which the printing plant was 
destroyed, Henry Phelps, a son of W. W. Phelps, came down 
Main Street selling this paper, the Nauvoo Expositor, and everyone 
who could raise five cents bought a copy. In that paper the three 
following affidavits appeared, which I reproduce herewith. 


AFFIDAVITS 


I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did (in his office) read to me a 
certain written document which he said was-a revelation from God. He 
said that he’ was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave 
me the document to read and I took it to.my house and read it and 
showed it to my wife and returned it the next day. The revelation (so 
called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time in 
this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and com- 
manded Joseph to enter into the law. And also that he should administer 
to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above 
doctrines. Wm. Law. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 85 


State of Illinois, 
Hancock County. 


I, Robert D. Foster, certify that the above certificate was sworn to 
before me as true in substance, this fourth day of May, A. D. 1844. 
Robert D. Foster, J. P. 


I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above athdarit 
of my husband. It sustained in strong terms the doctrine of more wives 
than one at a time in this world and in the next. It authorized some to 
have to the number of ten, and set forth that those women who would 
not allow their husbands to have more wives than one should be under 
condemnation before God. Jane Law. 


Sworn and subscribed before me this 4th day of May, A. D. 1844. 
Robert D. Foster, J. P. 


To all whom it may concern: 


Forasmuch as the public mind hath been much agitated by a course 
of procedure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by a num- 
ber of persons declaring against certain doctrines and practices therein 
(among whom I am one) it is but meet that I should give my reasons at 
least in part as a cause that hath led me to declare myself. In the lat 
ter part of the summer of 1843, the Patriarch Hyrum Smith did in the 
High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a 
revelation given through the Prophet, that the said Hyrum Smith did 
essay to read the said revelation in the said council; that according to his 
reading there was contained the following doctrines: 1st. The sealing 
up of persons to eternal life, against all sins save that of shedding inno- 
cent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd. The doctrine of plurality of 
wives or marrying virgins; that David and Solomon had many wives, 
yet in this they sinned not, save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation 
with others, evidence that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced 
in the Church, determined me to leave the office of first counselor to 
the President of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not teach or 
administer such laws. And further deponent saith not. 

Taek Austin Cowles. 


State of Illinois, © 
Hancock County. 


To all whom it may concern: I hereby certify that the above certificate 
was sworn and subscribed before me, this fourth day of May, 1844. 

Robert D. Foster, J. P. 

John W. Rigdon. 


Sworn to before me this 28th day of July, 1905. 
[Seal.1 James Jack, Notary Public. 


86 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


STATEMENT OF ORANGE L. WIGHT 


The following confirmation of John W. Rigdon’s affidavit is copied 
from the Deseret News of Saturday, August 12, 1905: 


Bunkerville, Lincoln County, Nev., August 4, 1905:—Seeing the testi- 
mony of J. W. Rigdon in the Semi-weekly News of July 31, and being 
much interested in the subject, and knowing that there lived in this place 
a man that was quite familiar with the early scenes of church history, 
especially those in and about Far West, Missouri, and having heard him 
say that he had many times visited his father and the Prophet Joseph, 
while they were incarcerated in Liberty jail, I went and interviewed 
Orange L. Wight (eldest son of former Apostle Lyman Wight), who is 
now 82 years old and resides with his daughter, Sister Harriet M. Earl. 
Brother Wight is quite feeble in body, but his mind seems to be as bright 
as ever. 


I found Brother Wight in his usual good humor, and seemed quite 
willing to talk, in fact, was pleased to do so. “Elder Wight,” said I, 
“are you willing to make a statement for publication in regard to what 
you know about Joseph Smith, son of the Prophet Joseph, being or- 
dained while in Liberty jail to lead the Church?” “Certainly I am.” 
“Then,” said I, “just write me out a brief statement covering those points, 
and I will give it in your own words.” Following is Brother Wight’s 
statement: : 


“In regard to the statement of John W. Rigdon, I endorse it in 
every point. Brother John W. Rigdon speaks of being in Liberty prison 
when the Prophet Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, Lyman 
Wight, and others were there (the others were Caleb Baldwin and 
Alexander McRae). I also visited the prisoners at or about the same 
time, and slept with them many times at different periods, and I cannot 
recollect of ever hearing the subject of an ordination mentioned. 


“My father, Lyman Wight, nor my mother, never alluded to it during 
their lifetime in my presence; so I take it for granted that Joseph, the son 
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, was not ordained to fill the place of his 
father, in the Liberty jail. I was born in the State of New York, 
November 29, 1823, hence am about seven years older than Brother John 
W. Rigdon. And if an ordination of Young Joseph had occurred in the 
prison, I would likely have heard of it, and would certainly recollect it. 


“Previous to this, while I was several years younger, the Twelve 
Apostles were organized and commissioned to assist in leading and 
governing the Church. I can recollect every detail distinctly. My ac- 
quaintance with the Prophet was from the year 1830 to his martyrdom, 
and I can truly say he was a Prophet of God, and was appointed to the 
divine mission to organize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 
in this last dispensation. 

“As to the Prophet’s believing and practicing polygamy, I have as 
near a certain knowledge of the fact, I may say, as any man living. I 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 87 


was well acquainted with most or all of his wives, and talked with them 
on the subject, at the same time my wife also talked with them. 
“If there is anything further that is necessary for me to communi- 
cate in regard to my recollection, I will willingly do so. 
“Respectfully, 
“Orange L. Wight.” 


Further talk with Brother Wight brought out the follow- 
ing facts: He was baptized into the Church in the spring of 
1832; was with the Church through all their troubles in the 
State of Missouri. Brother Wight filled a thirteen months’ 
mission in the State of Virginia in company with Jedediah M. 
Grant and others; was in Nauvoo at the time the Prophet was 
captured at Dixon, Ills., and was one of those who went up 
the Illinois river on the steamer “Maid of Iowa,” to assist in 


rescuing the Prophet. Joseph I. Earl. 
TESTIMONY OF BATHSHEBA W. SMITH 
AFFIDAVIT 
State of Utah 
County of Salt Lake. 


Bathsheba W. Smith, ce first duly sworn on eat de- 
poses and says: 

I was a resident of Nauvoo, State of Illinois, from 1840 
to 1846. I was married to George A. Smith July 25, 1841, 
Elder Don Carlos Smith performing the ceremony. Near the 
close of the year 1843, or in the beginning of the year 1844, I 
received the ordinance of anointing in a room in Sister Emma 
Smith’s house in Nauvoo, and the same day, in company with 
my husband, I received my endowment in the upper room over 
the Prophet Joseph Smith’s store. The endowments were given 
under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith, who afterwards 
gave us lectures or instructions in regard to the endowment 
ceremonies. ‘There has been no change, to my certain knowl- 
edge, in those ceremonies. They are the same today as they were 
then. A short time after I received my anointing, I was sealed 
to my husband, George A. Smith, for time and eternity, by 
President Brigham Young, in the latter’s house, according to the 
plan taught, to my knowledge, by the Prophet Joseph Smith. 
When I was married in 1841, I was married for time, and not 
for eternity. 


88 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


At the time I was anointed in Sister Emma Smith’s house, 
she (Emma Smith) said in my presence, to me and to others 
who were present upon that occasion, “Your husbands are going 
to take more wives, and unless you consent to it, you must put 
your foot down and keep it there.” Much more was said in 
regard to plural marriage at that time by Sister Emma Smith, 
who seemed opposed to the principle. 

In the year 1840, at a meeting held in Nauvoo, at which I 
was present, I heard the Prophet Joseph Smith say that the ancient 
order would be restored as it was in the days of Abraham. In 
the year 1844, a short time before the death of the Prophet 
Joseph Smith, it was my privilege to attend a regular prayer 
circle meeting in the upper room over the Prophet’s store. There 
were present at this meeting most of the Twelve Apostles, 
their wives, and a number of other prominent brethren and 
their wives. On that occasion the Prophet arose and spoke at 
great length, and during his remarks I heard him say that he 
had conferred on the heads of the Twelve Apostles all the keys 
and powers pertaining to the Priesthood, and that upon the heads 
of the Twelve Apostles the burden of the Kingdom rested, and 
that they would have to carry it. 

It has been, and is, necessary for me to make this state- 
ment, as contrary reports have been circulated as coming from 
me. Any statements purporting to come from me that have 
been made, or that may be made by any party or parties, in 
opposition or conflicting with this my sworn statement, are false, 
as I have never, to my knowledge, deviated one iota from this 
statement. 

Bathsheba W. Smith. 

Signed in the presence of 

Joseph F. Smith, Jr., 
B. Morris Young. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this roth day of 
November, 1903. 

[ Seal. | Martin S. Lindsay, Notary Public. 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 89 


THE REORGANIZED CHURCH—SOME FACTS 
REGARDING ITS ORIGIN 


The ministers of the “Reorganized” Church, or the “New 
Organization,” as it was first called,*declare that the Church 
at the death of the Prophet Joseph and Patriarch Hyrum Smith, 
was badly divided, its members scattered to the four winds, 
and that the Church was rejected with its dead. They also 
claim that the “Reorganization” is composed of the faithful 
who did “not bow the knee to Baal,” but remained true to 
the “original faith” as revealed and practiced by the Prophet 
Joseph Smith. In the words of their president: “The individ- 
uals who kept this covenant (the new and everlasting cove- 
nant) were accepted of Him and were not rejected, nor their 
standing before God put in jeopardy by the departure of others 
from the faith, What ever the office in the priesthood each 
held, under the ordinations ordered by the call of God and vote 
of the Church, would remain valid. They could as elders, 
priests, teachers, etc., pursue the duties of warning, expounding, 
and inviting all to come to Christ, and by command of God 
could build up the Church from any single branch, which, like 
themselves, had not bowed the knee to Baal, or departed from 
the faith of the Church as found in the standard works of the 
body at the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.”+ 

It is strongly implied in this quotation from the writings 
of the president of the “Reorganization” that all those who 
followed President Brigham Young and the Twelve Apostles, 
lost their Priesthood and standing before the Lord, and that 
the founders of the “New Organization” and their followers 
were the only ones who remained true and steadfast to the 
Truth. The evidence in this regard is against them. The 
truth is that the founders of the “Reorganized” church were 
the ones who followed every will-o-the-wisp, bowed the knee to 


*Saints Herald, Vol. one. 
{See article in Era, Vol. 7, No. 11, entitled, “The Church Rejected 
—When?” 


90 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


Baal and departed from the faith, while the Twelve and the 
Saints on the other hand, pursued an even course and were 
steadfast under all trials and difficulties even to the end. 

It is not true that the Church was broken, scattered and 
rejected following the martyrdom and that the “Reorganiza- 
tion” is a portion of the “original church.” Their organization 
did not come into existence until some sixteen years after the 
death of the Prophet and Patriarch and was an outgrowth of 
the movement under James J. Strang. 

There was a movement on foot to divide the Church, fol- 
lowing the assassination of the Prophet and Patriarch, but its 
range was not as extensive as has generally been supposed. The 
chief actors in this movement were Sidney Rigdon, James J. 
Strang and William Smith, each of whom aspired to lead the 
Church. Mr. Rigdon based his claim to the presidency on 
the fact that he had been the first counselor to the Prophet 
Joseph Smith, and therefore by right should be the “guardian” 
of the Church. His claim was in conflict with the position of 
the Church and the teachings of the Prophet. He laid his case 
before the conference of the Church August 8, 1844, and his 
claim was rejected by the Saints almost unanimously. At the 
same conference the Twelve Apostles were sustained as the 
presiding quorum of the Church. Mr. Strang’s claim to the 
presidency was based on his statement that the Prophet had 
appointed him as his successor by letter, a few days before the 
martyrdom. William Smith claimed the right of presidency by 
virtue of being the brother of the Prophet. 

Each of these men gathered around him a few followers, 
principally of that class of restless, erratic individuals, who never 
remain contented very long in any one place or under any 
circumstances; but none of them gathered many followers. Their 
organizations barely existed for a few years and then disap- 
pared; the fragments becoming the nucleus of the “Reorgani- 
zation.” 

The movement which resulted in the bringing forth of 
the “Reorganized” church, was of more recent date and was due 
principally to the efforts of two men, viz., Jason W. Briggs and 
Zenas H. Gurley. Mr. Briggs was born Jume 25, 1821, at 
Pompey, Oneida county, New York. He joined the Church 
June 6, 1841, and members of the “Reorganization” declare 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 91 


that he was ordained an Elder in 1842. His home was in 
Beloit, Wisconsin, from 1842 to 1854. After the death of the 
Prophet, Mr. Briggs sustained the Twelve Apostles and the 
Church and was apparently true to them until the exodus in 
1846. At that time he lost heart, turned from the Church in 
its darkest hour and sought the favor of the world. Some time 
subsequent to this he joined the movement under James J. Strang. 
In Strang’s organization he did missionary work, received honors 
and organized a branch. In 1850 he renounced Mr. Strang 
and joined with William Smith, in the latter organization he 
was “ordained” an “apostle.” He soon tired of William Smith, 
and in 1851 joined with Zenas H. Gurley who was at that time 
a follower of James J. Strang. These two men then organized 
a church of their own which afterwards was known as the 
“Reorganized” church. In 1886 Jason W. Briggs withdrew from 
this organization of his own begetting, declaring that it was not 
the Church of Christ. 


Zenas H. Gurley was just as unstable as Mr. Briggs. He 
was born at Bridgewater, New York, May 29, 1801, joined 
the Church in April, 1838, and moved to Far West, from 
whence he was driven with the Saints in the expulsion of 
1838-39. After this expulsion he settled in Nauvoo, where, in 
1844, he was ordained a Seventy,* under the direction of Presi- 
dent Joseph Young, and on the 6th day of April, 1845, he was 
ordained senior president of the twenty-first quorum of Seventy. 
He sustained the Twelve and followed their teachings and re- 
mained with the Church until February, 1846, (the month of the 
exodus) when he also left the Church and shortly afterwards 
joined with James J. Strang. Mr. Gurley was endowed in the 
Nauvoo Temple with his wife January 6, 1846, and of that event 
the record of Seventies states under date of January 10, 1846: 

President Zenas H. Gurley arose and said that the Presidents of the 


quorum (21st) had received their endowment. He observed that it was 
remarkable for the unusual outpouring of the Holy Spirit—Page 29. 


*The “Reorganized” Church History states that Z. H. Gurley was 
ordained a Seventy in Far West in 1838. This is an error, they have no 
original record of such an ordination. The original records of the Seven- 
ties in the Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City, give his ordination as stated 
here. i 


92 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


Again speaking of the authorities of the Church he said: 


He remembered forcibly the sayings of the First Presidents of Seventy, 
that we should so live that no charge can be brought against us. 
A few years ago the men in high standing in this Church were as little as 
we are. They obtained their exaltation by patient submission to right, 
and minding their own business.—Page 29. 


On January 25th, 1846, he said: 


The Saints who have passed through the trials of the Church were 
generally rooted and grounded in love and have a witness in their own 
hearts or they would not have remained.—Page 33. 

Within a very few days of this time Zenas H. Gurley de- 
serted the Church because he was unable to face the trials 
and hardships the Saints were forced to undergo. The “Mor- 
mon” people were journying in a strange land, the prospects 
before them were dark and some of the members became faint- 
hearted and were unable to endure to the end. Of this num- 
ber Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley were two who turned 
back and sought refuge in the apostate organization of James 
J. Strang. Indeed it required a strong heart and a firm-rooted 
faith for men and women to give up all earthly comforts and 
undertake a journey of that kind. Death stared the Saints in 
the face, they were poorly clothed, without shelter, save their 
ragged tents that would not shed the rain, and almost destitute 
of food; yet with the exception of the few who sought the © 
“flesh-pots of Egypt,” they patiently and determinedly pursued 
their way until crowned with the victory. The opinion of the 
world at that time was that the exodus meant the end of 
“Mormonism,” and that the Latter-day Saints had gone to their 
destruction; for without the necessary means to support life, and 
isolated as they were from the rest of civilization, they must 
surely perish in the barren and distant West. Such, too, would 
doubtless have been the case had not the protecting hand of 
Jehovah guided them. Is it any wonder under such trying 
conditions that the hearts of those weak in the faith should 
fail them? 

In 1849 Mr. Gurley filled a mission for Mr. Strang and 
made a number of converts to that faith. In 1850 he organ- 
ized the “Yellowstone branch,” for the Strangite church. In 
1852 he rejected the claim of Mr. Strang and joined with Mr. 
Jason W. Briggs, and these two men united their respective 


ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE 93 


Strangite branches, those of Yellowstone and Beloit, and or- 
ganized themselves into a new religious movement known today 
as the “Reorganized” church. In 1853, the leaders of this move- 
ment called a number of men to the ministry, “ordained” seven 
“apostles” and began a proselyting movement. For several years 
they tried to get “young Joseph,” the son of the Prophet Joseph 
Smith, who had never affiliated with the Saints since the exodus 
from Nauvoo, to join them and become their president. In this 
they failed, but were diligent and finally, through their continued 
efforts and the persuasion of his mother, he accepted that posi- 
tion in 1860, was “ordained” president of their church by William 
Marks, Zenas H. Gurley, and William W. Blair, and has con- 
tinued in that position ever since. 


Mr. Gurley remained with this movement till his death, 
but. his family, together with Jason W. Briggs, voluntarily with- 
drew in 1886. 


In 1852, when Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley com- 
bined their Strangite forces the membership was about one 
hundred souls, most of whom were converts made for Mr. 
Strang. In 1860, when “young Joseph” assumed the leadership, 
the membership was three hundred souls, most of whom were 
converts that had never belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ 
of Latter-day Saints. 


Of the members of the Church who were in fellowship in 
1844-46, the “Reorganization” has received no more, and likely 
less than one thousand converts, which fact shows that the 
apostasy was not so great in 1844-46, as has been pictured. These 
statements are based on the testimony of original members of 
the “Reorganization,” as they testified before the U. S. Court 
of Appeals for the Western District of Missouri, in 1894, in the 
Temple Lot suit, which was for the possession of property in 
the hands of the “Church of Christ” or “Hedrickites.” - 


- Before that court Mr. William W. Blair, who for many 
years was a member of the presidency of the “Reorganization” 
and who was one of its oldest members, testified that “one 
thousand was probably too high an estimate for the members 
of the original church, that had joined the Reorganized church.” 
He could “approximately say” that one thousand had joined the 


94 BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE 


“Reorganized church, and possibly that estimate was too large.” 
Record pp. 180, 181. 

William Marks, whose testimony is referred to by Mr. 
Evans, was also one of those who joined the “Reorganization” 
in an early day. At the time of the martyrdom he was presi- 
dent of the Nauvoo Stake, but was disfellowshipped for trans- 
gression at the October conference, 1844, and finally excom- 
municated. Afterwards he joined the organization under James 
J. Strang. In that organization he became a “bishop,” was a 
member of the “high council,” and later a member of the “first 
presidency.” After the death of James J. Strang, he joined the 
organization of Charles B. Thompson. another apostate. This 
is the same William Marks who “ordained” Joseph Smith, of 
Lamoni, president of the “Reorganization.” In that ordination 
he was assisted by Zenas H. Gurley and William W. Blair. 
Mr. Blair never belonged to the Church. It is almost needless 
to add that these men held no divine authority and could not 
bestow the Priesthood and officiate in the ordinances of the 
Gospel, and, therefore, the pretentions of the “Reorganized” 
church are fraudulent. Judged by its history, doctrines and the 
unstable character of its founders it is proved to be a counterfeit 
and nothing more. 

Considering the conditions under which the “Reorgani- 
zation” came into existence, and the fact that in the beginning 
the original one hundred members came from the Strangite 
church, and that during the existence of that organization from 
its foundation to 1894, not more than one thousand members 
of the “original church” (i. e. the Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints as it stood in 1844) had joined it, we are 
not to be blamed if we declare that that church is not the 
successor, a faction or a portion of the “original church” founded 
by Joseph Smith the Prophet through the command of God, 
April 6, 1830. And after following the history of its founders 
and pointing out their instability and the manner in which they 
followed after false leaders, receiving “ordinations” and honors 
under their hands, we can most emphatically delare that they 
were not the faithful who did “not bow the knee to Baal,” and 
who kept the “everlasting covenant.” 


